I posted a pointer to David Neiwert’s take on Ron Paul, The NWO, and his ties to racist and extremist groups. Feedback was swift, largely uncritical, and supportive of Ron Paul. I’d like to go into a bit more detail, and discuss why a candidate like Ron Paul is so attractive, and why some of his actions and positions represent the worst American politics has to offer.

A candidate who speaks eloquently and convincingly about issues that cut to the core of our political identity as Americans is bound to be a hit, especially in a field so populated by the same old professional corporate shills. However this alone is not sufficient reason to support a candidate. The user Seeker1 on the BIll Maher message boards really summed up this problem nicely (emphasis mine):

Straight talk is powerful. Americans are addicted to it — and, too often, addled by it. We’ve seen this before with Ross Perot and John McCain, two other right-wing candidates who charmed us with their apparent penchant for telling us uncomfortable but necessary truths. (And to give the man his due: pointing out that 9/11 was the inevitable outcome of decades of monstrous US foreign policy was a very necessary truth.)

But — as we learned the hard way on both those earlier occasions — just because someone can cut through the political drivel and speak with some clarity now and again, it doesn’t mean they’re someone we should dump our principles and better judgment out the window for, and rush right out and follow. The fact is that Ron Paul has built a political career pandering to the far fringes of the proto-fascist right. There’s twenty-plus years of documentary evidence that he does not believe in democracy as we progressives understand it. No amount of disarming straight talk should blind us to that core fact.

As tonight’s Republican presidential debate winds down, I expect to see the diaries humming with praise for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose forceful, eloquent anti-war rhetoric sticks out like a sore thumb from the undifferentiated conservative yammerings of the other candidates.

However we cannot pick and choose what we perceive about the man. If he has a great position on the war or religious freedom, that’s awesome. But to blindly ignore his faults and focus on the good is to join in the cult of personality that always seems to follow mavericks. There is a real need in America for a straight talking, straight shooting politician who is actually responsive to both the public and the constitution. We cannot allow this need to let us fall for anyone who appears to fit the bill. We need to remain critical, no matter how outstanding a candidate is. Obama is an excellent example, where a lot of the enthusiasm starts bordering on being a little too “high energy”. Which is one reason I feel he is someone to watch, rather than wholeheartedly support. Saying “well, do you support Hillary then?!!!” is not really a valid counter argument. I would easily vote for Obama over Hillary, but that compels me to hold Obama’s feet to the fire, and see that he lives up to the promise of his uplifting rhetoric.

Ron Paul is no Obama. His primary problem is not one of measuring actions up to words. It is who and what his words support:

it’s important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.

We need jump to no conclusion to arrive at this judgment. His own words convict him.

Under the headline of “Terrorist Update,” for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled “LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM,” on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet. You can read Nizkor’s copy of the article here, and see a reposted version on Google Groups here. Some relevant passages from the article (emphasis mine):

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That’s what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn’t ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

Reading the entire article will show that I have not taken these quotes out of context, though the article is definitely not for everyone: it’s a 3700-word racist tirade that is frankly stomach-turning in its depiction of African-Americans as violent, unevolved savages and even rapists. Without a doubt, it was articles like this one that prompted the Heritage Front, a Toronto-based neo-Nazi organization, to include the Ron Paul Political Report in its list of “Racialist Addresses and Phone Numbers.”

And then there’s David Duke, who can’t get enough of Ron Paul; you can find his columns on davidduke.com here and here and here and here and here. If you’re more of a dead-tree fan, you can find Paul’s thoughts on foreign policy reprinted in the January 2007 issue of the National Times, a white supremacist newspaper that apparently gets distributed through the time-honored neo-Nazi method of throwing the thing onto unsuspecting people’s porches in the middle of the night and scurrying away.

Pauls position on Gays speaks less of libertarianism, and more of homophobia:

Still, libertarian orthodoxy can’t fully explain Paul’s hostility to gay rights, and indeed to gay people in general. The Libertarian Party, which nominated Paul as its presidential candidate in 1988, has strongly opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act from the beginning; Paul supports it. While he opposed the “Federal Marriage Amendment” that would have outlawed gay marriage everywhere, he actually cosponsored the odious “Marriage Protection Act,” which would nonsensically bar federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law. “The definition of marriage–a union between a man and a woman–can be found in any dictionary,” he writes condescendingly. Despite Paul’s disingenuous claims that he is a “strict constitutionalist,” most legal scholars agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be unconstitutional.

You also will not find Paul listed among the 124 co-sponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Maybe he’s worried that they’ll take their “gay agenda” to far-flung corners of the world. He also doesn’t want gay people adopting children while they’re not serving in the military, either.

Corporate Hillary Clinton, a far leftist? With the exception of some woman’s issues, Hillary seems more like Lieberman than Kucinich. This should be setting off alarm bells among any liberals who think Ron Paul is a liberal candidate on the issues.

And yet given his positions on gay rights and his support for racist groups, he still draws support from conservatives and liberals alike. Phenry has the pro-Paul argument down (emphasis mine):

“But he’s against the war!” Yes, he is. So is Pat Buchanan. So is David Duke. If either of them were on the stage in New Hampshire today, full of sweet words about the war, would you be as quick to praise their “independence,” to gush about how well of course I wouldn’t vote for him myself but he sure is awesome anyway? Do you truly require nothing from a political candidate other than that he oppose the war?

Think about it.

Ron Paul has a number of good things going for him. Chief among them is his willingness to bring a bold new anti-corporate point of view to the table, and to give a more libertarian take on the Republican party more play in the discussions over the party’s future. However, is this all you require of a candidate? It seems like one single issue like his position on the war or on NAFTA is enough to warrant blind faith in the man. Does his support of the CCC, David Duke, and other white supremacist organizations give you no pause? Or his positions on Jews and Blacks? Do you like a candidate who thinks you can identify terrorists by the color of their skin? Perhaps a man who thinks homosexuality is deviant, and would rather see us lose willing and able military personnel on account of their sexual orientation is right up your alley?

Coming off of 8 years of George Bush and his devastating effects on this country, we need a man of principle to lead America forward. A man who embraces naked racism and hate is not that man. We need to cut through the cult of straight talk Ron Paul has built up around himself, and see him for who he is.

If he wins he will be the first far right supremist who picks a black man as his vice president ! lol

So lets drop the slur associations that rely on spurious quotes from nearly 15 years ago and lets associate him with the people he might run with for President and have publicly endorsed Paul for President, lets assume that one of the leading black thinkers in America has done some checking of his own.

Maybe you could start with Walter Williams regular column in the Jewish World Review ?

I’ll start with #3. Criag, that is a good point he made. (Although gays are being kicked out of the military when their sexual conduct is clearly not at issue, it is their sexual orientation.) And I’m not saying Ron Paul doesn’t make good points.
At all, actually. I am saying the his stance on gay marriage and on the don’t ask don’t tell policy does not match his rhetoric of individual rights. If all individuals have the same rights, why can’t some marry? If all individuals have the same rights, why is there a don’t ask don’t tell policy? You see, the clip you pointed out is an example of the problem with Ron Paul. He talked a good game on the surface, but as soon as you look at his actions, or the logic underpinning his positions, something starts to stink.

#2. Chris, I am with you in that same sense of deplorable freedom. I can pick anyone, but….. do I want any of them?
I’m still watching Obama and Edwards with interest, and hoping Gore enters the race. Time will tell.

#1 Craig,
How are my examples a stretch? What is thin about publishing your works in white supremacist publications? Or giving speeches to white supremacist groups? Or writing works that attack Jews and Black people?

You are right. He would be the first far right supremacist to pick a black man as his vp. Does this make him the next MLK, or savy? Everything about his strategy is one of making the pure hate that pours out of these organizations acceptable to white bread america. Saying he supports a black man who opposes affirmative action and loves capitalism is one way to do that.

Lets assume nothing. Not whether or not there are ulterior motives. Not whether or not Walter Williams is closer to Alan Keyes than Barack Obama. Not why stormfront and the CCC endorse Ron Paul so wholeheartedly.

On gay issues, this is a disingenuous argument. If everyone has the same individual rights, why should they apply in one state and not the other?
This is a rehash of the “states rights” call that served as a flimsy cover for out and out racism. If Mississippi wants to outlaw interacial marriage, is that ok? Should the federal government stay out of peoples bedrooms?

Even the “stay out of peoples bedrooms” argument is fake. Marriage is about legal status and respect. People can have sex all they want without marriage. The only thing Ron Paul wants the federal government to stay out of is the protection of the rights of the minority.

Again, his position on gays in the military is a false argument. Gays are not being kicked out for having sex during combat. They are being kicked out because their commanders are bibically uncomfortable with their being open about their sexuality.

I took a deep breath and dug deeper, and all I found was more dirt and fools gold.

The only democracy you want is one where everyone agrees with you and if they dont you will use any means possible to denounce them including the slander of calling him a white supremist, racist, anti gay.

You nto interested in debate your itnerested in forcing the American people through coecive state power to behave in a way you deem to be appropriate.

Socially enegineering the country according to yours and other eltisit liberal visions and ideas isnt democracy its sociailsm.

Machalvellian , ends justify the means are the tools of tyrants not the tools of democracy.

Personally I dont care if the gays marry, or they implement pink uniforms in the military although I do recognise that my views are not in the majority.

I accept that as part of a dmecoracy we have to accept the majority view and live by the constitution. If the majority wants to change the constitution then fine thats the peoples right.

Till then I will never try and smear another I will deal in facts and argue my case, we must be one people with respect for others. If you can win the majority to your views, or mine then thats fine as well, but I have had enough of the Neocons trying to shape their society in their vision.

I dont want it replaced with folks from the left doing the same .

Individual freeedom is key to this, all people have the right to be free and this should be the basis of society.

This is just a cleverly disguised ad hominem. “Ron Paul is a straight talker and that’s great, but he is just like **DAVID DUKE** ALERT ALERT VOTE FOR OBAMA.”

Come on – you’re not fooling anyone with this garbage.

Obviously you are a democrat to the end. And what end will it be? Drafted into the military, sent to some far-flung wasteland to die for “national security” i.e. “strategic resources”; or will it be taxed into oblivion, toiling away beneath Arbeit Macht Frei signs and attending mandatory civics indoctrination school? In any event the democratic party is impotent – it refuses, simply REFUSES to listen to the folks who got it elected last year.

Obviously we plebians are not worth listening to, we’re too stupid for our own good, right? I submit to you that we are all a hell of a lot smarter than you, and many others, seem to think.

Ron Paul is no savior – but the message IS. What’s that saying, the truth will set you free?

Ron Paul will never win the votes of hard core Democrat progressives, such as the folks who normally read this blog and others like it. So move along, folks, there’s nothing to see here. Concentrate on the people who never vote because they are so cynical about politics — that’s the audience who should be most receptive to Paul, and that’s the challenge. Reach them, energize them, get them to the polls.

I am a liberal who supports Ron Paul. i do not agree with some of his views, however he is the only viable anti-interventionist running. Would you rather be rules by someone like Hillary of Obama who makes you feel good, but continues imperial aggression, and slaughter spreading to Darfur, Iran, Somolia, Lebanon, etc.. or Ron Paul who is a scary old white man who would NEVER slaughter the innocent, restore civil rights for all Americans, stop the drug war, etc.. Remember the founding fathers were crazy militia members also.

More minorities and women in jail than ever before… congrats on that progress you’ve made.

More debt than ever before, both personal and government…

Literacy declining…

Healthcare declining…

Extremists groups of all sorts, black, white, enviro, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, drug gangs… all more powerful and extreme than ever, many even receive government funding… congratulations political correctness and progress!

More people on drugs than ever before…

Largest government ever…

Value of dollar lower than ever…

More children raised by strangers in over-populated and diseased kid farms than ever before…

I could go on and on but the point is, y’all aren’t progressing towards anything good. You are progressing this country down the loo. The leaders for Dems and Reps are no different anymore except that one preaches big gov’t through social progams and politcal correctness, the other through warmongering and fake tax cuts that only doom our children to further excessive taxation and even bigger government in the future.

Ron Paul is not racist. Those quotes about black crime weren’t his words, but they are not racist either. They are simply not politically correct enough for the truth-sensitive folks out there. Go down to lower income black neighborhoods and ask them directly. I’ve already done it. Ask them, ‘Does the law make you feel like a criminal even when you have not done anything wrong?’ A large percentage will say yes, so long as a cop isn’t nearby. Despite these feelings or resentment towards ‘The Man,’ those communities still let politicians pander them for votes, therefore they do not make sensible voting decisions when they repeatedly vote for the same ‘Man’ that discriminates against them with the War on Drugs, crappy education and the welfare state. The result of this happening for generations is that black youth often grow up much quicker than they should have to. They are often put into adult situations at a very young age and they have to do something just to survive. That is pretty much all that those supposedly racist quotes say. RP would end the War on Drugs, scrap the discriminatory education system, enforce illegal immigration and cut way back on the welfare state. More two-parent families, better education and more opportunities for jobs… RP is the only candidate offering logical solutions to make that happen.

Hes anti gay because he doesn’t support gay marriage? How about the fact that its not addressed in the Constitution, therefore should be left to the states. He doesn’t think gays should openly serve in the military because he doesn’t believe people should be classified by groups, so it doesn’t matter if they’re gay or not.

A point about Ron Paul I would like to make is he sees the hypocrisy of the leaders who pander to the downtrodden but only offer solutions to “help” that are at the same time structured to “maintain” the vote base. He sees it as a bunch of people corraled in and kept down. For example, providing financial assistance to single mothers while denying assistance to two parent families in as much need subsidized the break-up of families. With the help of the govt. many families became broken up and created a more permanent welfare situation instead of offering help in a way that made breaking out of poverty more likely. What I hear in his statements is that he sees through the blatant abuses perpetrated against blacks to hold them down with the pretense of helping them.

There is the voice underneath the voice, so to speak. When you have a politician saying to blacks, come to me and I will solve all your problems with government assistance programs… The voice under that is: You poor miserable nitwits that cannot take care of yourselves; you need government to grow more rich and powerful so that others can be stolen from on your behalf and since I want more power we can work a deal together where you give me what I want (your vote) and I’ll give you what you think you need. Only thing is, it will be given in a framework that KEEPS THEM DOWN.

Ron Paul’s approach is that nobody should be stolen from and that is whether you are doing it as an individual or you are trying to get government to do it on your behalf. Therefore, he wants to put an end to programs that are actually abusive and demeaning that are TARGETED to those who’s skin color can be easily identified.

Ron Paul’s message to blacks is to see through the irony and realize that they have had powerful social engineering forces waged against them to keep them down. His message to them is akin to a message of tough love. The voice under his voice is you are individuals created with the same unalienable rights as anyone else and its high time you simply accepted it and quit seeking and taking any preferential treatment based on the color of your skin.

8. Golden, the same exact comment, with no argument, just a link? Spamming won’t convince anyone.

9. I hate to see what that metaphor might do to itself, but bravo for bringing Jung into a political discussion.

You have no basis for your contention that I want a democracy where everyone aggrees. Democracy is by nature messy and full of conflict. I like that. However one can argue against supporting a candidate for office without offending the idea and the practice of democracy. One solid argument against offering such support is actually engaging in racist and anti-gay behavior. You are certainly free to argue this is desirable on his part.

Indeed on the “ends justifying the means”. Which is why I apply criticism to all candidates. Getting someone into office for my “core” issue isn’t enough of a reason to really screw other people out of their rights.

What if the majority wants to change the constitution to outlaw having more than 1 child, and implement a forced abortion program like China’s? Or if they decide black people can only live in a few states? There is a real need for the recognition of fundamental rights such as choice and freedom from racism and hate.

I have also had enough of the neocons trying to shape society, but you are buying into one of their more clever cons. Attacking the positions and political actions of a candidate is not a personal attack. Ron Paul supported groups that advocate hate. This is a public action, with public consequences.

I dig individual freedom. I also dig a candidate who is willing to stand up and talk about it, but not at any cost.

10. You never know. I think Obama and Fred Thompson have very good chances of getting in. I think Hillary has a very strong chance of losing the primary. Too many people just hate her. As for Rudy, I really think he is too odd a combination of far right and liberal politics to be attractive to anyone on the republican side.

11. Oh, hopefully a few. Seriously though, I am attacking the man’s public support of hate groups. All he has to do is take strong steps to distance himself from groups that advocate fear and racism. Why is any criticism of the man’s public actions viewed as an attack on the man himself?

I am a liberal to the end, and at the moment more interested in democrats than republicans. Your dystopian democratic fantasy sounds more like raving, and less like anything resembling accurate analysis. Although you are unfortunately kind of dead on with regard to its impotency and listening skills. Fortunately not all of the democrats fall under that particular web.

Everyone is worth listening too, but I wish you’d make better arguments. Not everyone Ron Paul has to say is crap, in fact far from it. But his positions and record on human and civil rights are deplorable. You don’t support the CCC and claim to be pro civil rights.

Which message do you think is a saving one, btw?

12. Actually, some liberals have taken quite the shining to him, and we here at Fitness For the Occasion seem to attract folks from the left, center, right, and far right.

Its always a good thing to reach out to cynical voters though.

13. I just don’t trust a man who puts his name and his reputation behind the CCC, David Duke, and other white supremacist organizations, and who opposes gay rights, to be an effective advocate for civil rights. It doesn’t add up. All of the other candidates could be complete shit, and I would still point this out. Lucky for us they aren’t all like that.

14. How is any of this the fault of progressives? “Y’all” can’t make a coherent argument.

As for anti-gay, those quotes run directly counter to his own words. In his opinion on the marriage ammendment, he essentially said he was anti-gay marriage and gay rights, but it should be up to the states. In the republican debate (video clip above), he misdirects the discussion into sexual behavior, when the issue is sexual orientation. Ron Paul is quite anti-gay.

Ron Paul may not have written those words, but he read them and approved they be published under his name. They are his.

I’m not sure what to say to the rest of your comments. You apparently asked “them directly”. Them being all black people? Who also don’t “make sensible voting decisions”? Are you echoing Ron Pauls assertion that:

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,”Paul wrote.

?

15. So would any constitutional ammendment that added legal recognizition of a human or civil right be “left to the states”? That argument reminds me of the civil rights movement…

His argument on gays in the military is because people shouldn’t be classified by groups? Seriously? Should women not serve then? They are a group. How about black people? Maybe if they do it secretly, and don’t let on that they are black? That is preposterous.

16. That is a very interesting point to make Jason. I don’t know how much I agree with the idea of tough love being a good way to fix the problem (why not just address issues like the disparity in coverage for single vs two parent families? Or working to make welfare a program that is expressly geared to helping families break out of poverty?).

In any case, these points do not address the problems of Ron Pauls support for hate groups. Why can’t the man just come out and say he made a mistake, and distance himself from them? Why can’t he take a libertarian stand and say that sexual orientation is not the business of the government, and should not be the basis for discriminatory law on any level, not just federal?

If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.

How do you turn a compliment on athletic prowess into a racist slur? Let me tell you what is racist. Bill Cosby could make such an observation and no one would be accusing HIM of racism,. But a white man can say exactly the same thing and suddenly the comment becomes “racist”!

There is no more clear cut example of racial discrimination than where the SAME objective statistical facts (e.g. black crime rates) are perfectly acceptable when cited by a Negro, but get labeled as racist when cited by a Caucasian.

The same double standard applies to Jewish commentary. Some guy blogging from Israel can say less than complimentary things about his co religionists in the United States and people will engage him in respectful discussion. But let a non-Jew, like Kevin MacDonald, write scholarly works that are not one hundred per-cent free of any criticism, and instantly the SPLC is all over him, branding him as an anti-Semite and doing their best to ruin his academic career.

The kind of society that I think Ron Paul wants to see, is one that is free of groupism of all kinds, not just racism. One where you would not have “protected” categories, and the whole related panoply of government (hate speech/crime bureaucracies), and private (ADL, SPLC) monitoring/”watching”/snooping PC enforcers.

18. Richard, if you can’t see how that sentence is racist, you are quite blind.
As for Cosby, if he says it as a comedian, then yeah, anyone could get away with it, regardless of race. But if you say it seriously, and in an article that cites statistics by a known racist with the aim of saying most black men are violent, then you are a racist, regardless of the color of your skin.

If the SPLC is on someone, something nasty is afoot. The SPLC isn’t known for being whiny or flaky. They hit hard.

As far as double standards go, I agree that there should not be any.

But while we agree on that point, it misses the racism of that line you quoted, and it misses Ron Paul’s history of racism entirely.

Being free of groupism sounds lovely, until you realize it only means the government is free from protecting groups, and individuals are still free to prey on them. It is an interesting argument, to be sure, but chock full of flaws.

Well, Dan, I am sure you would not want to become the object of “cult” worship. So I guess we can safely assume that YOU talk crooked (as opposed to “straight”, you know.)

I see a mirroring, by people like yourself on the purple end of the political rainbow, of those charged with conspiracy theorism on the red end. Just substitute “cult” for “conspiracy.” Gee, maybe if we just repeat the phrase often enough, as a substitute for addressing issues, we can turn “cult theorist” into yet another serviceable pejorative.

Ron Paul’s persistent votes against all aspects of the racially prejudicial drug laws in the USA are more beneficial to African-Americans, Hispanics, young people than any other proposal put forth by Obama, any Democrat (save the wonderful Dennis Kucinich), or any of the other Republicans.

500,000 Americans are in jail for drug use or creation, 200,000 are African American or Hispanic. They would be freed immediately if Ron Paul was President. Barack Obama, on the other hand, a professed user of cannabis and cocaine earlier in life, makes no such claim.

You can say whatever unfounded and dubiously inferred slander you want, the fact is, where it counts, on the policy and with his voting record, Dr. Paul would free more blacks in a four year term from prosecution, imprisonment, parole and probation than Lincoln freed with the Emancipation Proclamation.

So, sure, if he has friends in the Militia movements, or David Duke says hes a fan, well by all means let that be more prominent than 10 straight years putting principles to his votes in the Congress.

If Ron Paul is such a racist, why are Dennis Kucinich, a man I greatly admire also, and Ron Paul such close friends? Surely the most principled candidate of the left would not be the chief co-sponsor of so many bills by the most principled man on the right if they did not have strong mutual respect for each other.

Dr. Paul and Dennis Kucinich are each others greatest allies in bills dealing with ending the Iraq War and repealing the prohibitions of the drug war. If these two were successful, Kucinich-Paul would save more black lives and liberate more minorities than ANYTHING Barack Obama has in mind.

20. Richard, you didn’t address any of the points I made.
As for your “cult” argument, it is a classic mistake.
you see this proof
If a then b,
a
therefore b
and assume the following holds true:
If not a then not b
not a
therefore not b
This is incredibly fallacious.
Let’s take an example:
a1 If you are a square, you are a rectangle.
a2 you are a square
a3 therefore you are a rectangle.
And the reverse:
r1 If you are not a square, you are not a rectangle.
r2 you are not a square
r3 you are not a rectangle.

We cannot possibly get from r2 to r3. The reverse argument is not logically sound. So no, Richard, you cannot assume I talk crooked. That doesn’t make logical sense.

I do like the red/purple political rainbow imagery. Very clever.
But again, you did not address any of the points I raised.
I am in fact raising a number of important issues, but one of the most pressing is the tendency to discard criticism in favor of blind faith in an individual. Call it what you will, it is not healthy, and should be called out.

21. Marc, the points on the drug war are extremely well taken. If the man is not a racist, why publish his work in white supremacist journals? Why speak at events for the CCC? Why is he so buddy buddy with prominent figures in the militia/racist movements? Why are his answers to these questions dodges like “it was my ghost writer”? Why does a libertarian endorse governments restricting gay rights?

Kucinich and Paul working together is amazing, but it is hardly proof positive of the man’s valor! It means he worked together with another politician who, on that specific issue, shares the same goals.

It is no reason to turn a blind eye to Ron Pauls faults. If he is a man of principle, he will turn and face them, and address them in a substantial way. Just look at Edwards vs Hillary on the Iraq War. Edwards made a strong apology for his vote, and is a strong anti-war voice. Hillary has not, and has provided continual Democratic cover for a corrupt President desperate for another excuse to hide his incompetant and murderous ways.

I want to see Ron Paul act like Edwards and address his issues in a substantive way, not run away from them like Hillary.

I support Dr. Paul for several reasons regardless of what he has said.

1. He speaks honestly, openly and directly answers questions.

2. He is not in the pocket of any business and therefore can preform his service to the American Public with out influence.

3. His ideas/principles of non-interventionism, less to no taxes, conservative government spending and personal liberty are my own.

4. He works within the limits of the law/constitution

as such

5. he has been one of the only members of congress to uphold his oath of office. (the violation of which should be a crime, I believe)

6. If president his constitutional principles would hamstring him (as compared to Emperor Bush) to going to Congress for any legislation – Congress would then stop any of these “crazy ideas” from ever taking place (again contrary to Bush).

Dan: in your square/rectangle example the reverse argument is perfectly sound logically. The problem with it is that it operates on a false major premise. Assuming the major premise of the original is correct (which it is by definition of the terms), the fault lies in the fact that the corresponding premise in your reverse argument is the inverse of the original, when it should have been the contrapositive.

Now, getting back to the syllogisms in question:

If {you wanted to become an object of cult worship for talking straight}then {you would talk straight}
{you want to become an object of cult worship for talking straight}
therefore
{you will talk straight}

And the “reverse”

If {you didn’t want to become an object of cult worship for talking straight} then {you would talk non-straight (crooked)}
{you don’t want to become an object of cult worship for talking straight}
therefore
{you will talk crooked}

You might think that the second major premise is untrue because it is the inverse of the first, but that is not the case here. Why? Because the only other way to avoid becoming the object of cult worship for talking straight, other than by talking crooked, is by not talking at all! And in the instant case you are obviously talking.

You see, your geometric case involves a sufficient number of possible states of being (actually an infinite number), frow which a counter-example can be drawn to invalidate the inverse. When all possible states can be enumerated (as in the cult/straight talk case) then it is possible (and in this case in fact true) that the inverse will always be valid.

Nice try, though, to (crookedly) talk your way out of it. I’d say all you need is a little review of Deductive Reaoning 101.

And BTW the reason I did not address your points is because my response #20 was posted before I saw your #19.

23. James,
To support a man regardless of what he has said is, well, ridiculous.
It is also what he has done, but helping push white supremacist arguments
into the mainstream. That is in direct opposition to every feather in his cap, every accomplishment he worked hard to achieve.

Even given the reasons you have for supporting him, why is it difficult to confront his faults?

24. Richard: You appear to be confusing a sound argument with a valid one. Yes, the argument has a valid logical structure. If the first premise were true, it would indeed yield that conclusion. However, as you note, the first premise is not true, hence the argument is not sound.

The logic just doesn’t work Richard. Your “reverse” argument is not a sound argument. There is nothing to suggest that the only way to avoid being an object of cultic worship is to speak in a crooked manner. That makes zero sense. The first premise fails, and the argument itself goes down with the ship.

With regards to your not having addressed my earlier points, that is a most excellent reason not to have done so! My apologies. If you do decide to address them now that my #19 is posted, I would be very interested in reading the reply.

Dan says: Cosby, if he says it as a comedian, then yeah, anyone could get away with it, regardless of race … Being free of groupism sounds lovely, until you realize it only means the government is free from protecting groups, and individuals are still free to prey on them.

Evidently you have not heard Cosby ragging on black people without any attempt to be humorous. And I think his motive is good. He wants to try and shock people out of their victimhood/entitlement mentalities because he believes that leads to a laziness which puts limits on their ability to get themselves out of the welfare prison that the government has put them in by “protecting” their group from being “preyed upon.”

Dan quotes: “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Most people don’t try to refute these kind of statistics. Instead they will attempt to explain them as being the natural result of educational and economic deprivations, etc. (usually as an excuse to argue for even more of the kind of governmnet meddling that created the problems in the first place, and perpetuates them.) Are you trying to say that the statistics are not true, or just that it is racist for a white man to call attention to them?

Ron Paul’s most admirable characteristic is his intransigent dedication to Truth, which he speaks whether it offends Power or Poverty. And though I’m sure he has a lot less sympathy for the former than for the latter, he knows that it is never a good thing to try and ignore the truth.

He has not refrained from telling a primarily farming constituency that he is against farm subsidies and why that would be bad for them, and he’s not going to let the threat of being tagged with the phony label of “racist” by white do-gooders, stop him from pointing out to blacks how welfarism has re-enslaved them to lives of poverty, drugs, and crime.

The misery inflicted on American blacks by the government preying upon them is many millions of times greater than anything they may have suffered at the hands of white supremacist groups like the KKK. Ron Paul will truly liberate them.

The statistics came from a known racist with a questionable background. Damn right I am going to challenge the statistics.

Speaking truth is one thing, but parroting the arguments of white supremacists is not speaking truth.

The misery inflicted on American blacks by the government preying upon them is many millions of times greater than anything they may have suffered at the hands of white supremacist groups like the KKK.

To be clear, are you saying that welfare is “many millions of times greater” of a misery than lynchings, murders, voter repression and fear campaigns?

The CCC is the modern version of the KKK, and David Duke is a former member of the KKK. Why Ron Paul supports these people is beyond me. It is also beyond defensible.

28. Statist,
Ron Paul has taken public action to support white supremacist groups. Tell me how his actions do not reflect his “REAL” beliefs.

If the argument is a fallacy, show why it is. Offering critique of a public figure for his public actions is not an ad hominem. Or should we just accept everything Ron Paul says at face value, and vote blindly for our brave new leader, no matter what he chooses to actually do when in office?

29. Craig, how does a Fox News analyst’s opinion that Ron Paul is a good guy have any bearing on this discussion?

Your attempting to cast doubt on Paul’s beliefs and character by drawing associations between him and white supremist racists , you say that these tenuous associations translate into his support and belief of these racist ideals, you make the jump (with very little evidence other than some tenuous circumstantial evidence that he has rebutted) that these associations translate into him being a person that actually believes in these ideals. A racist “wolf in sheep’s clothing” . When a reasonable person looks at the facts though one must balance the circumstantial against the greater landscape of his career, his actions, his published beliefs and associations.

We must take each aspect and must balance its relevance in context to all aspects, if we take one aspect and ignore the weight of contextual evidence to prove a point or support our own agenda then we slur another and we should all agree that this needs to be stopped, the disgusting “swift boating” of Kerry’s war record was a good example of what I mean. Faux is an entire network built on this premise. Faux use some excellent analysts to give this method credibility, for instance they use Wes Clark as a military analyst and Napolitano as a legal analyst.

When you look at both Clark and Napolitano their advocacy and character are not in question(other than that they are willing to appear on the show at all).

Napolitano is a staunch and an uncompromising critic of Bush’s policies, he has written several books on freedom and the constitution here is a review of one I read recently.

Yes he is a conservative proper ethical conservatism has every right to exist beside ethical liberalism . Napolitano is Paul’s likely Attorney General and would over turn much of the fascist legislation that has been put in place in the last 20 years. Having an AG in place like Napolitano would create a revolution by itself.

To add to this your accusing Ron Paul of racism when he has nominated one the leading conservative black thinkers in America as his Vice Pres?

What need is a race between men of character with different ideas and then let the people decide based on the truth, then we need to embrace the peoples verdict and get on with it. I would love to see a Gore vs Paul race because the winner would not divide the country (and Gore got robbed the last time), after which we could again could live as one people, not a nation of hate and division.

I would suggest the full balance of evidence, probabilities and associations rebuts your contentions about Paul’s character, agenda and purpose.

31. Craig,
Let me first say that yours is an incredibly well put and eloquent argument.

I am attempting to call to light substantial associations which already exist between Ron Paul and extremist groups, using his public actions as proof.
He is less a “wolf in sheeps clothing” than a man selling rat meat and calling it braised beef special.

We must look at the whole of his career in determining whether or not to support him. However, if a man makes repeated mistakes, without apology or efforts to rectify, should his other good works discount those mistakes? If a man makes a career of helping the homeless, but occasionally mugs people, should his crimes disappear?

In the end, I’d say my goal is for Ron Paul to acknowledge, address, and move beyond his problem with extremist groups. I would love to see a sharp conservative (old school small government) and a sharp old school liberal go head to head in 2008. It would be even more valuable if he were to do so, as he would continue Edward’s lead in showing it is socially acceptable, even desirable, for a politician to honestly address his mistakes and move to correct them. Perhaps it might eventually snowball and invite people as far gone as George Bush to atone for their sins by making such accountability a social norm.

As for the evidence, it is far from tenuous. He appeared on the CCC’s unofficial radio program, gives interviews to the John Birch Society. He is published by the CCC, David Duke, and the National Times.

Why doesn’t he just condemn the groups? Why doesn’t he take steps to prevent them from publishing his work, or at the very least criticize them for doing so?

If Ron Paul is going to become the next President of the United States, he is going to need to answer these questions and more. He can either address it now, address it if he ever gets enough media attention to be considered a major candidate, or refuse to address it and act like Hillary on the war.

His actions on this matter will speak volumes to his character, and his capacity to lead.

He has already chosen the course that is consistent with his political principles. It’s very simple. He believes that the proper business of government is to punish people for criminal actions, not to get into the Orwellian business of thought and speech control.

I think he has a very broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights provisions regarding not prohibiting the free exercise of religion. A religion (e.g. Unitarianism) doesn’t have to involve a belief in God. A system of belief in anything (including racial supremacy) is a religion, for the purposes of the First Amendment.

Ron Paul is the widest possible kind of a Uniter. If it would provide an occasion to expound his principles, I’m sure he would just as readily accept an invitation to speak to a black supremacist group like the Nation of Islam as he would to the CCC, JBS, etc. And he would not repudiate an endorsement from Louis Farakhan, any more than he would repudiate one from David Duke.

He would have the same message for everyone: It is not my business as President to pass judgment on your beliefs. Believe whatever you want to, as long as you respect the individual rights of all people to life, liberty, and property.

Believe whatever you want to, as long as you respect the individual rights of all people to life, liberty, and property.

Only they don’t respect those individual rights. So by that measure, Ron Paul should judge these groups.

However your argument here is all speculation.

Maybe that is not Ron Paul’s message. And there is no way of knowing whether he would speak at Black Panther meetings, or advance their positions on race through subtly altered arguments, or write articles for their newsletters. To date, it does not appear as those he has. It looks as if he has limited his extremist group affiliations to white supremacists and radically anti-tax/anti-government groups.

Only they don’t respect those individual rights. So by that measure, Ron Paul should judge these groups.

No. If some individual belonging to one of these groups fails to respect someone else’s life (kills), liberty (kidnaps), or property (steals), then Paul’s responsibility is to make sure that individual gets prosecuted – for his actions, not for his thoughts.

Do you know of any instances involving a member or members of, let’s say, the Council of Conservative Citizens, where someone has been lynched or property has been destroyed? I haven’t heard of any.

It looks as if he has limited his extremist group affiliations to white supremacists and radically anti-tax/anti-government groups.

Oh, so now your down on anti-tax groups that are too “radical” for your personal taste! Well, I’m pretty sure we know that he’s not going to be accommodating you on that.

And as far as what brand of supremacists he is “limiting” his affiliations to, maybe its a matter of the non-white ones limiting themselves. He now has something like 16,000 Eventful requests (way more than any other candidate in the race), so he doesn’t need to go out pro-actively soliciting groups like the bronze supremacist La Raza folks (you know, the ones who were invited by Ted Kennedy to help craft the latest amnesty bill.)

You need to get it out of your head that the President’s job is to “judge groups”, because that’s judging beliefs, which would be respecting (or disrespecting) an establishment of religion. Your wasting your time if you think you are ever going to persuade Ron Paul to violate the First Amendment.

One more time – the President’s job is not to be the “moral leader” of the country. Being a Free country means that individual citizens get to choose their own morals and beliefs, without the government making official pronouncements disparaging some and praising others.

35. Richard,
Why does it have to be an such an extreme action to merit recourse?
One can fail to respect life by denying health care,
One can fail to respect liberty by denying a job,
and one can fail to respect property by defacing it.

With regard to extremist groups, it is also a question of whether or not Ron Paul wants to be associated. If all he is doing is preaching his word to a bigger audience, why is he only picking white supremacist groups? Why won’t he just clarify that is goal?

Heh, not so fast on the anti-tax groups. Sorry for not being clearer. I mean the groups that are closely tied to the militia movements. I should have just said militia movements.

Again, I think you are way off in your assesment of what constitutes a religion. A President needs to lead, and repackaging the racist arguments of fringe groups for mainstream consumption is not leading this country down a path that respects human rights. Yes, people can choose their own beliefs, but who a candidate chooses to support does speak a solemn truth about who they are and where they want to lead this country.

There were some who thought that “separate but equal” was how to approach civil rights in this country. The government disparaged this, and praised the message of equality. It is possible to take the ideals of libertarianism too far, and to leave the protection of rights out of the equation of government.

Ron Paul may get a lot of requests for events, but that is beside the point. He chose which beliefs he wanted to praise, and even help argue for.

As long as Ron Paul wishes to lead us towards the CCC, StormFront, and David Dukes’s vision of America, I will oppose his candidacy.

Just because someone has medical skills, that doesn’t make him every sick person’s slave, nor place him under an obligation to provide health care to anyone who comes along demanding it. This is a very slippery proposition. Do I fail to “respect life” by working to prevent the government from robbing my family through taxation to fund health care for some other families?

Actually the word “respect” was a bad choice on my part. There is really no obligation to proactively respect other people’s rights. There is only the obligation not to violate them. And the way you do that is to refrain from murdering. You can’t be accused of violating someone’s right to life just because you fail to take action to enhance that person’s life.

One can fail to respect liberty by denying a job

Not only do you not have any obligation to supply a job for anybody, but requiring someone to employ a particular applicant denies the liberty of the employer.

and one can fail to respect property by defacing it.

This is the only one you got right.

why is he only picking white supremacist groups?

Perhaps it’s a strategic issue. Why do democratic candidates not squander their money and time campaigning in solidly red states? Brown supremacists favor open borders. Paul does not. Black supremacists could be expected to favor big government entitlement programs, which Paul opposes. I imagine he appreciates that such groups would not be all that receptive to his proposals.

So what about white “supremacist” groups. Well, just like any ideology, racists come in a spectrum of different strains, despite the attempt by the liberal news/entertainment establishment to simplistically portray that they are all identical.

Supremacists range from the most virulent, who advocate and/or engage in violent behavior towards outgroups, all the way to those who simply believe that there is a race related genetic difference in behavior propensities.

Even more benign are those who not supremacists at all, but would be more accurately described as separatists – those who respect the right of every race, including their own, to have a secure existence in their respective homelands. These people are hopeless idealists who dream that political conditions will materialize at some future time which will give the white race the same chance to survive in its traditional territories that the Negroid race has in sub Saharan Africa, and the Mongolid race has in eastern Asia. This is a harmless bunch who could naturally be expected to be receptive to a candidate like Ron Paul who would stand firm against attempts to muzzle their freedom of speech, re-engineer their social preferences, and possibly even break their families apart through laws that would take their children away from them on “child endangerment” charges for teaching them politically unapproved doctrine.

So I think Paul would be vigorous in prosecuting those on the extreme “right” end of the racist spectrum who violated individual rights and/or advocated the violent overthrow of the government. But he would protect those on the “left” end, as well as moderates in the middle, against having their rights of association and expression crushed.

glad to see people defending Ron Paul on here.. the biggest problem Ron seems to face is that he isn’t using political lines (lies) to pander to the American people, he is giving it to them straight. The problem with that? It’s sometimes hard to understand.

Example, he’s not against gay marriage, he’s against the government saying what the states should do… so states can still over-ride.

Also he says abolish the IRS , people get confused (how?! yeah right!) , well to understand why he can claim to do that, you’d need to be an economist, he has been one for many years prior, and it is indeed feasible, its not like he could do it overnight, even with an 8-yr term it might be tough, but at least he admits flaws in the tax system and will push for reform, NOBODY else will even QUESTION it.

Keep in mind, when you LOOK into his answers and see his many speeches/writings to congress, all these “crazy” ideas start to seem pretty damn smart. I’m hoping enough people catch on…. I hope he at least gets to debate Hillary as the republican nominee.

Oh and the immigration bill would have ruined our country, there is indeed a plan from the super-elite that want to form the North American Union and build a NAFTA super-highway , google those two subjects for some info , lou dobbs also reported on it, but bottom line is, open borders is step one to ruining this country by taking our sovereignty. Another hard concept for the people to understand/accept.

37. Richard,
It is society’s burden to ensure life, not an individual doctor’s. You can avoid the slipperiness by advocating for single payer health care.
But this was an off topic example, and hence not such a great one.
In essence, by allowing people to die who could be saved by proper medical care, I think rights are being violated. For example, that toddler with the bleeding disorder no insurance company will insure 100%, who racks up millions of dollars of hospital bills.

On the job one, I mean denying a job on the basis of sex/race/religion/orientation. Would discrimination become acceptable if the “state’s rights” argument got carried out to its fullest?

Democratic candidates do campaign in red states. And win. It is a shitty strategy to ignore any state, and bravo to Dean for pushing through a 50-state strategy. It worked in 2006.

But your point doesn’t stand:
Paul isn’t just getting his positions out there, he is taking their positions and getting them out there.

What makes you say Paul would prosecute some racists, and not others? It is an interesting point, but can you point to anything that suggests he would merely support so called benign extremists, as opposed to blanketly not getting involved?

38. JD,
The problem he faces here is his support for extremist groups.

The “let the states decide” argument is not an honest one. It was the same tired argument that was unsuccesfully tried against the civil rights movement. Either discrimination is legal, or it is not. This is not a matter to decide state by state.

The IRS thing isn’t at issue.

I hope Hillary isn’t the nominee the republican nominee has to face off against. That’s just bad from every angle.

39. JD,
Closed borders will hardly solve this country’s problems. What we need are less draconian measures for legal immigration, and harsh prosecution of the companies that hire illegal immigrants. That is a start.

I think your question can be summarised as “if Ron Paul is against collectivism and racism is a sin of the heart, then isnt David Duke an example of racial collectivism in that he believes in segregation of the races, then why does he use a racial collectivist platform to ptich his ideas” , isnt he against collectivism?

Another good one would be ” if we are all free as individuals then is it ok for these free individuals to exercisee their freedom by sending their kids to racially based schools”

His argument (and Walter Williams btw as well) is that forced racial integration hasnt worked and he may want to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Now I have problems with assinging quota’s as well, but I would have a major problem with folks being banned from privately owned diners, pools, gyms, hotels etc

To honest I dont know the answer to that one I think I know the answer and if its the right one then thats ok.

but if its the wrong one and we start to pin signs like “whites only” to diners, schools and rest room doors, because in his view people have the freedom over their private property and they can decide to include or exclude who they want etc then hes got a problem with me and most of America.

It would be a good subject for a blog post. Does Ron Paul believe in the racial segregation ?

You’ve got much bigger problems with Ron Paul than just his (perceived by you) racism. You’re obviously a “cradle to grave” socialist and wouldn’t belong in Paul’s camp even if he was a lily white anti-racist.

41. Craig,
That is a very interesting question.
That is also quite the link.
I’m going to take a look at this.
Thanks!
42. Richard,
I wouldn’t say problems, I’d say disagreements.
I am proudly farther to the left than Paul on a number of issues, but I am hardly a “cradle to grave” socialist.
I disagree with Ron Paul on some positions. However it is his support of extremist groups that is highly problematic.
I find the interplay of ideas essential, and think that properly argued conservatism vs properly argued liberalism can yield new insights.
All the more reason to attack issues like racism.
I might not be in his camp, but I would be very happy to see him running if he was principled on issues of extremism and racism. As it is, instead of simply introducing classical libertarian ideas into the mainstream, he is introducing extremist/racist ideas into the mainstream. That is what I am objecting to.

I am a libertarian and I have met Paul on several occassion. Even years ago I was challenging him on his antigay perspective. He had excuses for his votes. For instance he voted to overturn Washington. DC’s repeal of sodomy laws.

Ron does hang out with racists and antiSemites and the real fringe of th fringe of the lunatic Right like the Birchers. He loves them. Lew Rockwell, who wrote the racist diatribe you mention, is good friends with Ron and equally enamoured with the extremist Right. Both are “social conservatives” who oppose the libertarian view on those issues. Rockwell wrote a piece praising the police for the Rodney King beating and suggested that more police beatings of “suspects” would be a good thing.

I am rather amused at the refusal of the cult of Paul to see the facts. He did not that gay activity is unhelpful just as straight activity is. Take his entire remarks. The current policy allows gays to be discharged merely for being gay. No behavior need be involved, disruptive or any other kind.

Paul first called that a “decent” policy. Disgusting. Then he lectured about group rights. The question was not about group rights but whether gay individuals in the military should be discharged. After that detour he then distorted the actual policy. He said it was about “disruptive behavior”. That is either a lie, if he knows better, or an indication he knows nothing about the issue. Neither is a good qualification for a man who wants to be president.

After misquoting the policy he then again said he supported the current policy. Now lest there be any confusion since Ron often says things in a way that appear all things to all men he was given a second chance to clarify. The last question was to ask if any one candidate would in the Republican fold would allow gay people to serve openly in the military. If they did would they speak up and say so. Ron Paul kept his mouth tightly shut.

Paul is not libertarian on social issues. In fact he’s become worse on them in recent years. His lecture on group rights vs individual rights shows the level of his hypocrisy. Gays don’t have rights because they are members of a group. True. Only individuals have rights. True. But apparently he was happy with a policy that excludes people not because of their individual issues but because they are members of a group.

I had supported Ron in his 1988 bid, long before most his cult members heard of him.

I will say in conclusion that his answer on the gays in the military question was anything but open and honest. He danced around the issue, introduced something not pertient, then misstated the actual policy. Hardly open, hardly honest.

Supporters are one thing (and he does have some who are quite eloquent), but some seem to support every one of his actions regardless. You can support a candidate and condemn his actions if they are wrong.

His answer on gays in the military may not have been open and honest, but it was very revealing. He isn’t a real libertarian on these issues.

The fact is that Ron Paul has built a political career pandering to the far fringes of the proto-fascist right

I had to quit reading there. A former Libertarian presidential candidate who votes against everything unconstitutional and anti-freedom, who speaks out against coporatism, is a fascist? I don’t buy it, I couldn’t go any further.

Maybe Ron Paul has the same fear about homosexuals that I do. We have seen how as a group they tend to be pretty monolithic in their support for anti-First Amendment Orwellianism. They will agitate for “hate speech” laws where, for example, a preacher can be thrown into jail for reading to his congregation passages from the bible condemning sodomy. Amd even worse, they favor “hate crime” legislation, where people can be given greater punishments for what they think than for what they do!

The irony is that these people who are supposedly so much against “hate” are themselves passionate haters of anyone who dares to hold and express ideas different from their own. And they make no moral distinction between hatred for abstract ideas and hatred for people.

I do observe that distinction. All human beings have preferences – things they like and things they don’t like, things they like very much (love) and things they detest (hate). I have sufficient honesty to admit to myself that I hate the idea of homosexual behavior. And I’m not afraid to “come out” of the closet, so to speak, with that hatred.

But just understand, if you are capable, that that does not mean that I would or could ever feel hatred toward any individual homosexual, nor that I would ever advocate that homosexual behavior, engaged in privately, should ever be criminalized.

As far as the marriage issue, I do not think the government belongs in that business, If Ron Paul is able to get rid of the income tax and social security, then the two principle impediments to privatizing marriage will be gone, and marriage can then flower as a privately sanctioned institution that will be able to exist in all of the diverse forms that have historically existed in human societies.

The other term for this is “guilt by association” and it is in fact a logical fallacy.

If I wrote something on my blog that was applauded by a serial murderer, would that make me guilty of murder?

Of course not, and because a white supremist endorses Ron Paul, he is not ipso facto guilty of racism either.

If Dr. Paul was donating money to white supremists then you might have an argument worth considering.

Furthermore, this particular newsletter and Ron Paul’s response to it is well-covered at the wikiPedia entry for Ron Paul. I suggest you check it out for yourself. Ron Paul is not a racist and does not support racist ideology of any kind.

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.” – Ron Paul

Since Ron Paul has specifically stated (2001 Texas Monthly interview) that he did not write those comments from newsletters you cite, and that they do not represent his views, you have no point.

Ron Paul doesn’t pander to anyone– if you’re going to quote something, at least quote something that has a bit of common sense. The only thing/group he can be said to pander to is the Constitution. You think he panders when he makes all those lone dissenting votes in the House? It’s tough to stand alone when everyone is eager to spend taxpayers’ hard-earned money to give Mother Teresa a $30,000 medal, but that’s what he does, even though people can then say, “Ron Paul even voted against Mother Teresa!” He even offers to give his OWN money for the medals and challenged his colleagues to do the same, and of course no one ever agrees. They’re good at spending everyone’s money but their own and that’s why they’re in Congress.

For gay marriage: he said last Friday night in Kansas City that he doesn’t believe there should even be government-issued marriage licenses– that anyone who wants to get married should be allowed to without government interference. When’s the last time you heard a “marriage is for a man and a woman” defender say something like that? He voted against the federal FMA, but he believes this wild and crazy thing that states should be able to make their own laws. If a state wants to legalize gay marriage, he thinks that’s the state’s right. If a state wants to ban gay marriage, he thinks that’s the state’s right. But overall, he’d prefer government to get out of the business of marriage altogether. He believes that states should decide their own laws according to the Constitution, so he votes for almost no federal laws or funding. The Marriage Protection Act was widely seen as an alternative to the FMA– a less-bad scenario, and yes, Hillary Clinton supports it. You mention John Edwards, but he has specifically said that marriage is only for a man and a woman. The Marriage Protection Act upholds previous court judgments that found that the “full faith and credit” clause did not apply to social mores such as marriage. For an example, Illinois did not have to accept polygamy because Utah did. To me, this is perfectly acceptable. Things change gradually, and if you let states decide on their own, many of them will legalize gay marriage. If you let judges decide, you’ll have the current situation in which states who want to ban gay marriage put a definition of marriage (man + woman) in their state Constitutions and there will be little hope of getting gay marriage legalized there in the future.

Re the comment you made in #4: he does not publish speeches, etc. in white supremacist groups. The groups themselves may republish his speeches. Mike Gravel got in trouble for speaking to a group that denies the Holocaust. He says he didn’t realize who they were. I give him the benefit of the doubt.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”– if you watched the 3rd Republican debate, he said that the policy itself was acceptable (the actual “don’t ask, don’t tell” part, which I would think he would apply to all orientations equally) and that it should focus on behavior, not just being gay or not. Bad behavior should also include bad heterosexual behavior as well. So, that is different than how DADT has been enforced and how it should actually be enforced. He would not be in favor of someone being fired from the military simply for being gay. If you look at his record, he votes for little federal funding, but he always votes for funding for veterans and is very interested in them as an issue. He votes for increasing veterans’ health care when others vote to send them to more wars and decrease their benefits.

Response to #40– “either discrimination is legal, or it’s not. this is not a thing to decide state-by-state”
Either you go by the Constitution, or you don’t. It’s not something you can make exceptions to. Reverse discrimination (affirmative action) has been legally sanctioned.

Response to #41– The Civil Rights Act actually was more symbolic than anything– laws were already on the books for most of what it contained. It was not necessary except as a symbol, and it would not have been necessary if existing laws had been enforced. Voting laws already prohibited discrimination. If you’ll notice, all (or most) of Texas’ members of Congress voted against its renewal out of protest because some language of the bill specifically singles out Texas as being racist. They believed that that is no longer true today and either a new bill should be written or that one should sunset. Ron Paul is from Texas.

No, Ron Paul does not believe in racial segregation. He in fact would do more than most (including Obama) to help blacks because he is against draconian federal drug laws which disproportionately affect blacks and their families, he is against the “inflation tax” caused by the Federal Reserve and would try to remedy that (nobody else even talks about that) and he is for oodles of tax credits for poor and working-class families (involving health insurance, public education, starting a business, etc.) of which many are black. He is for reducing foreign wars, which would save and improve the lives of many soldiers, who are disproportionately minorities and poor.

It is really the opposite of how you are presenting it– why aren’t you blogging about Giuliani, of whom many former friends have said that he is personally racist, under whose NYC regime unarmed blacks were killed and incarcerated at record levels? Why not Romney, whose church wouldn’t allow blacks as priests (or the equivalent) until the late 1970s? Why not Hillary Clinton, whose husband initiated many of those federal drug laws (affecting blacks disproportionately) that Ron Paul is so against, and who would send soldiers off to war for any purpose? Why not John Edwards, whose lawsuits against doctors increased the cost of healthcare for all?

49. Richard,
As a group? How many gay people, out of the some million in the US alone, have you surveyed to get this idea about anti-first ammendment crap?

Hate crime legislation is not about punishing thought. It is about punishing a crime whose intended victims are an entire community.

There is no irony there save in your imagination. Fighting hate that leads to murder is noble.

So if two gay people kissed in public, could that be criminalized?
Basically, anything straight people can do, gay people should be able to as well. Any separation makes a mockery of equality under the law.

50. Demidog,
If Ron Paul just hung around those groups, that is one thing. But the man is actively supporting extremist hate groups. Calling this out is essential.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the problem. If your blog post was applauded by a serial murderer, of course that would not be the problem. That is quite the staw man argument. Let’s say, however, that serial murderer thought all people with blue eyes should be killed, and said the reason is that they can see through peoples clothing. Now you write on your blog that people with blue eyes have been known to see through some lighter fabrics, and we need to at the very least lock them up. Let’s say you excuse people who assault people with blue eyes, suggesting it is only a crime if it occurs on private property (and then the only crime is trespass).

Can you see the difference?

51. Louise B.
Since they were published under his name, and he approved them, that statement on his part is meaningless.

His argument on State Laws is crap. Kiss universal civil rights laws goodbye (as he would like to). If he wants to do away with marriage licenses universally in favor of some other way of providing those rights to individuals, then bravo on that point. It is one solution short of actually issuing marriage license to (gasp) teh gays.

Given the volume of his work published by these groups, I find it hard to believe he isn’t aware of it. But I would love to give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope he takes a public stand on this particular matter, and calls the groups out. Even better would be: dissect his own essays and see why they have so much appeal to that audience.

I did catch that part of the debate, and frankly, it was bunk. All he needed to do is say “don’t ask don’t tell is crap”.

His support for veterans is very much appreciated.

Then scream to the heavens about how unfair life is to white people and how equal it is for everyone else, and get rid of it. Ron Paul wants to ax the entire civil rights act. That goes even beyond your position.

It was a response to certain states being to blinded by hate to effectively govern themselves. It is why rights should always be guarenteed by the largest body possible. Everyone seems to have some idea of what rights just don’t count, and that is always, always bullshit.

As for focusing on other candidates, that doesn’t in any way take away from the arguments here. In this post I focused on Ron Paul because the mainstreaming of hatred is an issue I care deeply about. On your other points:
Giuliani: Lot to talk about here, agreed!
Romney: His religion has been overdone. I’m more interested in his general credibility (which is crap)
Hillary: Her husbands actions are not her own. She has plenty to write about though, from war to her general attitude towards the public (and not listening to them), to her support for Bush when he needs a Democratic stooge.
Edwards: This argument is actually bull. The cost of healthcare is a problem because of our healthcare system. Frivilous lawsuits are always a problem, yes, but enough (if not the majority) of such cases are valid, which means the doctors are incompetant. Its like arguing for limits on lawsuits against big companies. Why can’t the companies just stop abusing the public?

As a group? How many gay people, out of the some million in the US alone, have you surveyed to get this idea about anti-first ammendment crap?

Since this was in the context of hate speech laws, which we don’t quite yet have in this country, those who need to be “surveyed” are the ones in Canada. And you don’t have to approach with a questionaire every individual in a population, to be able to observe how united that community is in it’s advocacy of, support for, and satisfaction with laws which imprison people for expressing a different perspective on their “lifestyle” than they have. How many of the “million in the US” have you ever heard decrying the “hate speech” trial balloons that anti freedom of speech politicians send up from time to time?

Hate crime legislation is not about punishing thought. It is about punishing a crime whose intended victims are an entire community
…Fighting hate that leads to murder is noble

Hatred is always a good and a healthy emotion when it is felt toward abstracts such as ideas or behaviors. But when felt towards another person it is only healthy if that person has caused some injury to oneself or to somebody one cares about.

I think it is safe to infer that homosexuals hate the idea of copulating with a member of the opposite sex. And if they are somehow born with that inclination, then it would not be psychologically healthy for them to pretend that they do not have such an aversion. I would never “nobly” try to fight against that hate, just because it might lead some homicidal maniac to want to “murder” the “entire community” of heterosexuals! Quite the contrary. I would consider it noble to fight for the right of every individual to be free to hate whatever behaviors they find unattractive – rather than trying to force them to sacrifice their psychological health in a futile attempt to try and prevent everyone in the world from becoming a criminal.

So if two gay people kissed in public, could that be criminalized?

Of course not. Kissing is not homosexual activity, unless it involves the genitals. The same principles apply to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Depending on the occasion, a holy kiss on the cheek, or even on the mouth can be acceptable in public. Deep, prolonged mouth to mouth kissing which is a prelude to sexual arousal is in bad taste and there is nothing wrong with frowning upon it. But it should not be criminalized. Only intercourse, actual or simulated, needs to be prohibited in public places, and even on your own property if visible to passersby which might include children.

Basically, anything straight people can do, gay people should be able to as well.

I’m glad you believe that. How about the converse? If homosexuals can feel an aversion (with different levels of intensity) to intersexual coupling, can heterosexuals feel an aversion to intrasexual coupling with varying degrees of intensity, up to and including regarding it as an unnatural and sinful perversion?

53. Richard,
Decrying hate speech trial balloons?
You’ll have to be more specific.
“I think it is safe to infer that homosexuals hate the idea of copulating with a member of the opposite sex.”
How on earth can you think that?
I mean, rationally?
Your definition of hate has been perverted to make your point,
but it fails. Again, this is <em>not</em> about thought.
“Kissing is not homosexual activity, unless it involves the genitals.”
Ok, that’s gold.
“I’m glad you believe that. How about the converse? If homosexuals can feel an aversion (with different levels of intensity) to intersexual coupling, can heterosexuals feel an aversion to intrasexual coupling with varying degrees of intensity, up to and including regarding it as an unnatural and sinful perversion?”
Do you mean biological drive to have gay sex? Yes,
straight people can have the same biological drive.
Your idea of “aversion” and “hate” is wildly off base.
Homosexuals don’t say that heterosexuals are unnatural, against god, and should be killed. They do not brutally torture and murder straight people to send a message to “those #*$%ing straights”. And if they did, I would oppose it just as firmly.

“Kissing is not homosexual activity, unless it involves the genitals.”
I feel I should add a bit more here.
There is no need to determine what is and is not homosexual activity, just to regulate inappropriate sexual activity (which is sex in public). We agree on that point.
But your definitions of what is and is not homosexual worry me a little. How is a kiss between same sex partners not homosexual? In fact, the kiss is the symbolic physical act. In articles on gay marriage, what do you always see? Pictures of couples kissing. So yes, I think some homophobes would outlaw kissing if they could. Good on you for not being part of that crowd.

Homosexuals don’t say that heterosexuals are unnatural, against god, and should be killed.

I would venture to estimate that of those heterosexuals who say that homosexuality is unnatural and against the laws of God, only one in a million are screwed up enough to advocate capital punishment. Remember, those same religious people also believe just as strongly in the commandment which says “Thou shalt not kill” as well as the teachings of Jesus regarding leaving judgment of persons (as opposed to behaviors) to God.

No, those are not the people homosexuals need fear. Those who would physically harm homosexuals are not law-abiding religious people, but rather simply criminals.

And while I would guess that the percentage of homosexuals who would want to harm heterosexuals is even less that the other way around, I think a rather large number pose a different kind of danger. Namely, they desire to enlist the power of the state to deny to heterosexuals the freedom they want to be able to enjoy to believe what they want to believe about the naturalness or unnaturalness, the sinfulness or the righteousness, of their “orientation.”

Richard,
Since you insist that this is about legislating beliefs (rather than addressing actions), can you provide any backing whatsoever for your belief? Have you looked at the hate crimes bill, and what it actually does? (It has a specific clause protecting freedom of speech).

As for heterosexuals who think homosexuality is a sin, believe in the bible, and ignore “thou shalt not kill”…Hypocrites are common among the radical religious right. Your assumptions thus far have not hit the mark.

“No, those are not the people homosexuals need fear. Those who would physically harm homosexuals are not law-abiding religious people, but rather simply criminals.”
So everyone who commits crimes against homosexuals lacks a prior criminal record? I’ll make a venture of my own, and suggest this is plainly not the case.

Actually homosexuals as a group (with the ususal caveat of exceptional individuals) are their own worst enemies. You don’t make friends by advocating laws that will take away people’s freedoms.

There will be unpleasant consequences for those who are attempting to enforce their ideas of government speech/thought control in such a way as to favor their own beliefs and have opposing ones squashed. There are two ways in which this will come back to bite them.

First the heterosexual majority, upon being pushed to the wall, will assert themselves. Unfortunately the likelihood is that they will not opt for a principled abolition of all hate speech laws. Rather they will probably want to use the precedent set by homosexuals, and turn these laws around on them.

Secondly, by giving the government the power to control speech concerning sexual orientation, a pandora’s box will have been opened that will be too tempting for those in power to resist. Dissent from government approved doctrine, criticism of official government policy, etc. will be outlawed.

I would not concern myself with the subject, were it not for the fact that people like yourself are using sloppy definitions and specious reasoning to nudge society in these dangerous directions. So allow me to give you a one paragrph long primer on some badly needed definitional clarity concerning important biological realities:

Pain is a good thing. It serves as an alarm that the physical body is in danger. Yes it is unpleasant, but it is precisely that unpleasantness that propels us to take action to counter the danger. Human beings have a mental as well as a physical being. Hate is the mental equivalent of pain. It arises from a perception that something is endangering us pertaining to what other people are doing (society) or proposing to do (politics). Hate speech is just talking about one’s intellectual pain.

In a free country, homosexuals have the right to speak about whatever it is that makes them feel endangered by (i.e. what they hate about)heterosexuals’ behavior – and vice versa. Trying to bottle it up in a pressure vessel of government intimidation will inevitably lead to a very nasty explosion.

58. Richard,
The same twisted “their own worst enemies” logic could work on any group that has achieved protection through hate crimes legislation. You do not have the freedom to infringe on someone else’s freedom. That is not, and should not, be guarenteed anywhere.

Of course bigots will fight back. Let them. That doesn’t change the inherent justice of laws that protect against hate crimes.

Again, read the bill. This isn’t about speech. The first amendment is explicitly protected.

How about honestly addressing the source of hatred?
As far as the very nasty explosion, that failed argument has not held as it has been tested throughout history.

Pain and hatred are fundamentally different, at the physiological, psychological, and societal levels. Pain is a sensation. Hatred is an emotion and a state of mind.

Pain and hatred are fundamentally different, at the physiological, psychological, and societal levels. Pain is a sensation. Hatred is an emotion and a state of mind.

At the physiological and psychological level pain and hatred are similar. They both serve as healthy defense mechanisms. The former warns us of assaults against the integrity and health of our bodies, the latter warns us of assaults against the integrity and health of our minds. You naturally hate my ideas, and vice versa, because they are contrary to conclusions each of us have reached and which we each are strongly attached to.

Let me tell you how thought control laws (hate crime legislation) work to effect speech control:

When I was twelve I was molested by a homosexual stranger. He was a drifter who was working in an electronics store in the little desert town where I grew up. I was buying components for a science project, and he invited me to his trailer to help me with it. Instead he raped me. By the time I got the courage to tell my parents, he had disappeared. I’m sure my father would at the very least have beat the living crap out of him if he could have been found.

I realize that the possibility is very slim that the occasion would ever arise when I would find it necessary to assault anyone, let alone a homosexual. But it could, if I were ever put into the position of a parent or grandparent desiring to seek revenge on someone who harmed a child or grandchild of mine.

So, without hate crime laws the most I might get would be a couple of years in jail for assault and battery (which I would have decided to have been worth it.) But with hate crime laws in effect, I would be looking at getting an additional three times as long. Why? Because of what I have spoken in this blog. I have stated here that

a) I loathe the idea of homosexual acts; and

b) I am pissed at the way the homosexual community as a whole has been instrumental in getting hate crime laws passed.

This would undoubtedly be taken as proof that I hate homosexuals, thereby making me eligible for the “enhanced” penalties. Just as you are incapable of differentiating between hatred for behaviors and hatred for people, so our entire society has been brainwashed into ignoring that important difference.

It should be obvious now how hate crime laws exert a chilling effect on freedom of speech, despite any “provisions” to protect such speech, which might have been meaninglessly written into such laws.

I would be wise, wouldn’t I, to keep my mouth shut as far as expressing my opinions regarding homosexuality, and especially activities of the homosexual community as a group, that I find abhorrent. For to do so, could put me at risk of being punished to a vastly greater extent in the event that I might be convicted of some crime against any member of this protected group.

Pain is low level, hatred is a higher level function.
One is on the level of reflexes, the other on conscious emotions like love. For a computer metaphor, it would be like saying assembly language is the same as lisp.

I am very sorry to hear about what happened to you. You have my warmest sympathy. I hope that asshole experiences instant karma. I wish the pain of that experience leaves you, and the joy of new experiences replenishes you.

The question of the ethics of revenge is very very complex. Violence in such a context is at once something you know you should not allow, yet is immediately sympathetic and understandable.

Without hate crime laws, given your past, it is possible that an extra dimension of intent would be added to the possible crime. In such a case, a hate crime conviction would be the least of your worries.

A good lens to view this through would be absent hate laws, looking at where protected speech could nonetheless create questions about motive and intent. Suppose there are two neighbors, Bob and John. Bob hates john, and on a regular basis tells his friends “I fucking hate that guy. I’d like to rip his throat out”. One day John attacks Bob, and in self defense, Bob rips his throat out. What previously would have been taken as a case of self defense now seems a bit suspicious. Did Bob engineer the fight? Was he overeager in his response?

While you are free to say what you want, you are not free from the consequences of your words. Bob would never be locked up for simply expressing his view of John. However in the context of a violent crime, his views cast reasonable doubt on his culpability.

However Hate Crimes are about protecting against attacks on groups of people using symbolic violence. So it is the act itself which is at issue.

No matter what you have to say, it is never wise to keep your mouth shut. Disagreements on opinions are not commentary on their value.

What ever the hell he’s saying the American people on the net are buying it, hook-line-and sinker. Almost 20,000 YOUTUBE, up 15,000 in less than two months (Obama has only 8600). Ron Paul’s website, according to http://www.Clickz.com, is the #1 GOP website in May for traffic with 27%, up from the #8 spot in March; next is Romney with 21%. And Ron Paul is still in the top 4 searched terms in blogosphere (having held the #1 spot for 5 weeks) on Technorati. No other candidate from any party is in the top 10. This is BORDERLINE INTERNET TERRORISM! I hate Ron Paul…how about you! http://www.IHateRonPaul.com – “…they hate us for our FREEDOMS!”

62. Rudy,
He is definitely creating buzz on the internet. Straight talk is just as seductive as I surmised. The problem he seems reluctant to address is his support for hate groups.
If he stuck to telling the truth, I’d be cheering him on.

It is consistent with Ron Paul’s dedication to the Constitution that he should defend the rights of all Americans to express their opinions, without the government taking a position on those opinions. And that includes what you choose to call “hate groups.”

At least so far in this country it is not a crime to speak “hatefully.” It is a crime to do physical injury to another person (as opposed to “injuring” their tender feelings) and Ron Paul would consider it to be his job as President to see that Constitutional laws were enforced, and that such criminals would be punished.

But as long as David Duke refrains from criminal activity, he is just as entitled as you and I are not to have his opinions branded with an official governmnet stigma by the President (or a Presidential candidate) saying disparaging things about his opinions, just because they may be unpopular with the majority.

This is not to say that a Preisdent cannot express his own opinions on racism, abortion, etc. But he must never say negative things about any particular individual or group, based upon what that individual or group advocates regarding controversial issues. His job is not to divide the country by trying to isolate certain points of view for official stigmatization, but rather to treat every law-abiding citizen respectfully, even if he differs with them, and especially if they are in a minority.

When Ron Paul votes against federal regulation, it is often because the federal government has no constitutional authority to do so. This keeps fringe issues that have nothing to do with the federal government from becoming campaign platforms…at least it did, until we raped our most beloved document.

If you want to go around naively trumpeting “success” in such diverse fields as education simply because we have a “department of education” then, you really need to have a serious conversation with reality.

I know, history and stats are more boring than a hit-piece article calling a man who has fought his whole life for racial and economic equality a bigot who panders to proto-fascism. But you owe to yourself to judge how broken economies become once the government fixes everything.

Anti-trust law started in the late 1800’s and now corporations are consolidating larger than ever, being far more largely involved with government in dollar terms than the American people. Yet cartels and robber barrens have never successfully been able to dominate free markets while raising prices.

Just remember that all wealth comes from human labor and property rights. The government can’t make it, but they can sure waste it.

64. Richard,
Sorry for not getting back earlier.
Defending the rights of individuals to express opinions, no matter how noxious, is laudable, and I stand with anyone who espouses that view. However Ron Paul is himself expressing and supporting those opinions, and while he is absolutely free to do so, this affects what kind of a president I think he will make.

Sometimes, a president should divide the country. I can see cases for that. But on the whole, you are right, the president should unite the country and treat everyone with respect. The way in which he supports hate groups does not suggest that he would be able to do either.

Again, supporting the rights of hate groups is one thing, supporting the groups and their message is another thing entirely.

65. bob,
The constitution is vital, but it was not written in stone. It is not the end all be all of our government. And the fact is the extremely strict interpretation of the constitution which does not allow for most federal laws goes beyond simply being well outside mainstream legal opinion. It also carries a practical impact on the well being of many Americans.

The education system in this country is a mess, but this is a call to fix it, not remove it entirely. Our federal institutions are not horses to be shot upon the first sign of defect.

You are missing the point. I am saying people are disregarding Ron Paul’s clear record on hate groups and equal rights because he’s stood up on a soap box and said “libertarianism is shiny”. Economies become broken for a range of factors, relating to governments, individuals, and corporations. Blaming it all on “big-government” is buying into a faith, not relying on facts and provable statements.

Cartels and robber barons have, historically, been able to do a lot of harm with the power they were able to consolodate.

Remember that real government comes from people. To the degree that it does not, we need to take it back. But this is not a reason to throw it out. What the government can offer, beyond the reach of individuals, is protection against abuse of power and the protection of our rights as individuals. That is what government should be doing.

If Ron Paul could just come out and take a principled stand against hate groups (support their right to say what they want, but oppose the substance of it), he could be a more effective advocate for individual liberty.

Paul has no ties to any ‘racist or extremist’ groups – and you are contradicting yourself. If he takes a stand to support their right to free speech while not supporting what they say, you will just attack him and say he agrees with them. He hasn’t got a racist, or mean bone in his body. He’s medico for chrissakes. It won’t stick so you can yammer all you want about it and no one is going to believe you

On the other hand, we know who the racists are..

It’s Hillary, Obama and Richardson that pandered to LaRaza this weekend…

Under the headline of “Terrorist Update,” for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

How in hell is that racist? Robbers, by nature, are fast, else they wouldn’t accomplish much when robbing you.

This is so laughable

It is true that Ron Paul is no OBAMA and thank God because OBAMA IS INDEED a racist who panders to and is hosted by groups like LaRaza.

Just do a search for Obama, or Hillary on the blogs in the Google News section and youwill come up with plenty of real evidence of their associations with groups who want to kill all the people and take back the land.

This conversation about Paul is over….because it has no basis in fact.

“If Ron Paul could just come out and take a principled stand against hate groups (support their right to say what they want, but oppose the substance of it), he could be a more effective advocate for individual liberty.”

He already has, goofball. He’s said it many times. IN order to protect YOUR liberties we often must protect the rights of others whose speech we abhor. This is the price of liberty.

Grow up and stop making Obama the next Jesus Christ. He’s an empty suit….and not too bright.

67. Skeptic,
I’ve pointed to where you can *see* those ties to extremist groups. He supports what they say by echoing it in mainstream language, and through patronizing.

No need to yammer. As Ron Paul becomes a more serious candidate, this will definitely come up more often.

68. You lack reading comprehension skills.
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
He did not say “If you have ever been robbed by a robber, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” That would be in line with what you are saying. No, he clearly said “black teen-aged male(s)” are fast.

Why does your frequent pointing to LaRaza and shaking the panic finger feel like desperate ramblings of a skeptic without a point?

Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the facts I’ve presented won’t make them disappear.

68. It is disingenious to suggest I am talking about free speech here. If Ron Paul is so pro individual liberties, why support groups that want liberties limited to certain individuals on the basis of race? You can support someone’s right to say something without supporting the substance of what they say.

I support Ron Pauls right to associate with whomever he wants. He just needs to recognize that when he spouts recycled white supremacist garbage, that paints a very stark picture of what kind of a President he’d make.

(Again with the reading comprehension. I said Obama was someone to watch. If that’s the next Jesus Christ, then there are quite a few redeemers out there this campaign season.)

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

In my home state, the top finishers in the 100 and 200 meter dashes are black each and every year. In the Olympics, the top finishers are black – in fact you’d be hard pressed to find a white guy in any of the heats. Is it racist to make the correlation from that to the streets of America? I admit I missed the link to the whole article so maybe there is context that lends itself to racism but this statement in and of itself is not ‘racist’ in the modern sense of the word.

You did edit the quote about 95% of the blacks in DC being criminal a little unfairly. There are some other statistics, followed by a jab at the Criminal “Justice” System. Maybe you should remember that Paul wants to end prohibition, and the “war on drugs.” How many black people would let out of jail?
You also said he supports far-right and racist groups, while it seems to me that those groups support him.
The mentality of political correctness has done more to harm the discussion of how to improve the conditions of the poor than a few objectionable sentences can do.

Let me just say that I am very impressed with the substance and presentation in this forum. I disagree with fitness on a few items like representing the “fleet footed” comment as being racist and therefore using it as an attack weapon. But i must also give applause for him/her (wouldn’t want to label anyone in this forum for fear of being eaten) being consistent and verbally talented.
To Richard Brodie: I felt I was effective at conveying my ideas and beliefs in print until I saw you, Bravo!!!!
To Louise B: I feel that you may have been discriminated by fitness because your name would indicate that you are a female. You made (of course in my opinion) very well thought out assertions and arguments. Bravo!!!
To everyone I missed in comment that made equally good reading. Bravo!!!
And to this site: Bravo!!!
Now onto the credits…
It appears that Ron Paul only has one fault according to fitness so I’d say that puts him/her ahead of every other candidate because as far as his/her posts go he/she has had multiple issues with other candidates so we can count on his/her vote for Ron Paul but he/she probably wouldn’t let on because it would undermine the premise of this/that site.
I made the implication for a few different reasons but one is that I want everyone to see how cumbersome it will be to have to delineate groups based on political correctness. Try typing several pages of doctrine while considering all orientations, affiliations, discernible differences and being politically correct while doing so. It would be seven pages of disclaimers and apologies in advance and wasteful. This is what current legislation has come to. It’s not as simple as dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s and therefore has lost it’s relevancy to the original intent. Almost everything I hear in print or audio has lost the original intent by the end of the point. I just want the best candidate for me and the U.S. to win and I feel in my heart and mind that it is Ron Paul.
Regardless of any individual running for president why is it that we have party lines and bipartisan government? Should any association be made with regards to politicians, partners, laws, or your dinner choice, other than, are they a good choice for the position? When it comes right down to it do we not have choices everyday that we have to make concerning what is good and right for us? So in retrospect the choices for president that we have boil down to what is right/best for us no? If fitness or any one can’t see that one candidate is better than the rest for the most important reason (to him/her) then they must have an alternative that shines above, but my point will be this, comparison shoppers will always yield the best results. So look at whoever you think is the best candidate and when looking, look for the worst attributes so as to make a comparison based on the same comparison you make about the candidates you don’t like or support. Caveat: don’t be a hypocrite, if your guys skeletons are less meaningful than the other guys then by all means vote for him but don’t express publicly that ” I’d vote for him if he didn’t do this one thing” because it’s obvious there is more to it than that and I feel it is party lines moreover than any other significant fact. I am color blind and politician blind, democrat or republican makes no difference to me it’s what is good for me/U.S.
It took me over 2 hours to read this page and it was totally worth it. I wish that Ron Paul wins and that all of you are chosen as his cabinet. Richard you should be a shoe in for vice pres if the other guy wasn’t already chosen. Thanks for actually reading this drivel and I hope everyone gets something out of it. Krishnamurti said “If you have a problem with me, is it not your problem?” I agree. Don’t hate, debate!!
Finally, please indicate, (anyone) exactly when this turned from a constitutional republic to a democracy…I can’t seem to find it in my (department of education written) history books.

The first and most important thing to get off the bat is that there are a number of issues with Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. I don’t think his approach to civil rights, gay rights, or health care is correct. I think his obsession with state’s rights is a fine way of avoiding many of the defining debates of our time. I think he is a religious fundamentalist wearing see through libertarian clothing.

But I do like his position on the war, so there’s that.

Ok, onto the rest.
How is a generalization about a whole group of people based upon race not racist? If I said “all asiansstudy hard and are good at match” or “Jews are good with money”, are those not racist statements?
I don’t see how I discriminated against Louise B. Could you point that out?

Back to Ron Paul, you can count on my vote going firmly against him. He strikes me as anti-choice, anti-gay, and anti-civil rights. Plus universal healthcare is kind of important, and I don’t see him supporting that anytime soon. At the moment, I’m looking at Kucinich and maybe Edwards.

I’m not sure what you’re driving at with regards to complex politically correct doctrine. It is pretty simple to pass a federal law saying “don’t discriminate on the basis of sex, creed, race, sexual orientation”. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

Personally I do look at politicians based on their actions, but party affiliation can matter. It doesn’t always. Take Lieberman for example. He was a “Democrat” on paper, but by his actions an ass. That being said, party affiliation can give strong hints about one’s actions and voting record.

But the idealist in me would love to see political parties abolished and all candidates forced to run on their own merits.

Comparing candidates is of course a good idea. And it is essential to look at worst attributes. Edwards, for example, is a bit of a coward on gay rights, and has been very worrying on Iran. It is that last point that might push me away from him. It highly suggests he never learned the lesson of Iraq. But no, it isn’t “obvious there is more to it”. Problems are problems. If something represents a significant lackon the part of a particular candidate, there is nothing hypocritical about pointing that out.

(Wow, 2 hours! This thread has grown quite a bit, hasn’t it? Krishnamurti’s quote is interesting, and could make for a dicsussion itself).

I think we refer to this country as a democracy partially as a result of leftover public school indoctrination, partially as a hopeful rhetoric of what we’d like to see. But yes, we are a republic. Even “representative democracy” really falls short.

I only have a few minutes this morning but I want to address my discrimination comment. I was juxtaposing a bit, you corrected Louise about Ron Paul’s connection to Duke etc., because he ok’d things which in essence is guilt by association, but then in the same post you absolve Hitlery from her husbands actions. What gives? She’s married to the guy, shouldn’t that make her able to come out and say “I reject Bills opinion on this” or ” disagree with my husband on this issue”? That’s what you seem to expect Ron to do but not Hitlery. It’s early and I could be wrong or may be convoluted may just need coffee but I tried to be coherent. Have a nice day, and I will definitely be back

Ummm, fitness, I’m talking about a lot more than infidelity here. Perjury, giving the Koreans nuclear capabilities (under the guise of a non proliferation agreement), just being generally out for the Clintons instead of out for the country.
Hitlery is adequate as she is a socialist and a tyrant (to me). I’m ok with a woman president but again the litmus test is observing the worst traits and picking the lesser of the “EVILS”. I have no reason to want to downgrade everyones health care to second rate so that everyone gets at least second rate health care. We have a major medical problem but her solution is socialist medicine and that trick never works. The field of candidates is slim pickings and the choice is not easy but I have certainly decided that more of the same is not beneficial as it is the reason we are in the predicament we are in. I’m a self employed carpenter and after the slow summer I just had and going into my slowest season I am not optimistic about the economy that has been savaged by the same ole same ole crowd for decades. There are so many issues that need to be addressed and expecting the crowd of career politicians tat are running to improve the situations is absurd at the very best. If you succeed in producing a viable reason for me not to vote for Ron Paul then I will pencil in Craig Tindale for president (so as not to waste my vote)….

As far as commenting on Asians or Jews or any race and correctly describing the race in respectable terms or language then no, it is not racism. Saying that tall people make the best basketball players is a split. You can be tall and fat and therefore not a good basketball player or you can be tall and skinny and not be a good basketball player but to say young black men are fleet footed can be construed in the same fashion. So it may be an incorrect statement by not defining the “physically fit” portion but if he had included that phrase he would be spot on with a factually correct assessment of young “physically fit” black men being fleet footed. It’s not racist it’s a (not so politically correct) truthful statement. Perhaps there were extenuating circumstances for the statement being made but I can’t seem to find the article in it’s entirety so I cannot comment further on it. The end result to me is that your concerns of Ron Paul’s civil rights stance and allowing the states to decide (as per the constitution) are moot. The reason I find no reason for concern is that in this day and age we have instantaneous communication. If a state made a law that tavern owners could put up a sign that said whites only then the tavern owner would pay the price for such an ignorant move by losing customers (I find more and more that people are becoming racially color blind). Same principal applied to a sign that says English speaking customers only would invariably produce negative results for obvious reasons, first and foremost comes to mind that if someone cannot speak English then they more than likely cannot read English and so the hypocrisy begins because now you require a bilingual sign. Duh!
I think the sun fried my brain today.

By the way, Fitness you would be my nominee for AG. (whether you feel qualified or not just look as Gonsuavez’s record). At his point you may feel I have ulterior motives and I do, I want to be press secretary. Boy would the bias media get a kick out of me, right in the pants!

Michael D,
Hillery isn’t nearly as evil as right wingers make her out to be. Sure, she’s bad, but she’s no Giuliani. Not by a long long shot. I won’t even begin to address how far from being a socialist she is.

The myth of downgrading health care is pernicious. Maybe for the ultra ultra rich, but even then you could just have a hybrid system with guarenteed care for everyone, and premium doctors for those who can afford it. And with the cost savings associated with axing the health insurance industry, just think of what that money could be doing in our economy….

So as not to waste your vote, please do vote for the lesser of two evils if it regretably comes to that. We’ve seen with Bush what the greater of two evils can do to our country (and the world).

….
It seems that you don’t have a firm grasp of racism then.

The problem with the “the market will solve teh racisms!” argument is it doesn’t account for small markets that don’t give a shit, and extreme minorities. Let’s say I’m the only Korean fellow in a small town in West Virginia. Suddenly none of the bars serve me. Let’s also say the towns residents agree with this. Will they really lose any business? Hell, they might attract business by offering to host KKK/CCC rallies. As the only Korean, I’d be out of luck. How would the market solve everything in that situation?

Rafael,
Being colorblind is a goal. If we get to a point where disparities do not exist, then it makes perfect sense to not give a crap about differences. However to address disparities, we need to identify those disparities and act accordingly.

Rafael, the world would be a better place if we were all blind. There would be a reliance on senses which may give people more common sense and a sense about what is important versus what is esthetically desirable. We are in a situation where being thin and beautiful is creating zombies and tyrants. Zombies that are so vain that nothing but looks matter and tyrants that think skin color makes someone inferior or superior. How can you think that being color blind is a bad thing. I’ve been literally and racially color blind my entire life and it has not been detrimental to me I think. I am a good person and I don’t do or wish bad things to good people. I do however wish bad things to bad people and I am aware that that is poor quality but I believe it is a human trait as well.
Fitness I don’t feel that Hitlery is evil because of right wingers, I feel that way because of her actions.
The problem I have with the lesser of two evils sanction is that they are EVIL. So in my estimation I will vote for a tree before i vote for more evil for this country. I feel that Ron is not evil and therefore he has my vote. I also feel that Craig T. is not evil so I’ll pen him in if I find that Ron is evil. Everyone else in the race for president is a career politician and by default are not good for the country but good for themselves. Ted Kennedy is a good example of a career politician not giving a damn about anything but his self. He wants to give amnesty to illegal immigrants (no care for dolling up the term here) to acquire more votes, he doesn’t want wind farms on the cape because he wants unobstructed views, but he doesn’t want illegals on the cape unless they are mowing his lawn for cheaper than a legal citizen and he wants wind farms inland so he can have cheaper electricity. I honestly have no idea how the bastard keeps getting reelected. But then again if everyone thought like me we’d have no problems and no politicians right? We’d go back to calling them public servants and not officials. We’d have accountability for actions. We’d have a system where you couldn’t break a campaign promise and you were held to your word and your oath to uphold the constitution. Where your job description as president wouldn’t mean you are the most powerful man in the world and everyone must bow to your authority. The decades of abuse and mismanagement will not be reversed quickly but the longer we wait to initiate positive (good for U.S.) change the less likely it is that we will see positive change in our lifetime.
To address your Korean problem I would have to say that the problem would be worked out something like this. You would call your cousin that runs the distributing company that supplies the region with alcohol and gouge them and he would send you bottles of chevais regal so you could stay home and drink and not care about the bigots that own the bars in your neighborhood that you should move out of because there are no other Koreans in the area. ( as likely as the scenario you put forth I believe).
I do not wish to have a firm grasp of racism. I don’t understand why it even exists and distance myself from it to the best of my ability. So to make an apt description of someone based on statistical information or basic observation is not racist to me. The ACLU is a racist organization but yet it exists under the guise of a civil liberties union. Sorry but your argument here is that if you make judgments based on race then you are a racist yet the ACLU exists for that very purpose so by your application you want to dissolve the ACLU??? I’m confused by your grasp of racism….

Fantastic research. I would like to repost some of this on my blog if you don’t mind. I have had it up to my eyeballs with the Cult of Ron Paul. I have been trying to warn people about his extremism for months and his followers don’t listen to reason. It’s bothering me because good candidates are being ignored in favor of this nutjob. Sure being anti-war is good. There are lots of rational candidates for that and Ron Paul is not rational. Thanks for writing this.

Wow Shelly… Please explain what good candidates you are talking about and how they are being ignored regarding Ron Paul? And how do his supporters qualify as a cult? How does he qualify as not rational? I am a reasonable person (currently) in favor of Ron Paul and I’d suggest you re-read this forum, I feel you’ve missed a great deal. Nut job???? Not rational??? Examples please??? Name calling is not considered cognitive discourse so who is not being rational here. Warn me please, I’ve been looking for the bad traits of all the candidates and he has the least of all of them so maybe I missed something and you can enlighten me.

Fitness, I have major problems with the GOP candidates, Druleiani being one of the worst, there is no one person that I see that has better plans or past records save one on that side. The Democrat side is just as slim pickings with Gravel being my Democratic pick and I have some major issues with him. First and foremost is his stance on Illegal immigration. His overstatement of the percentage of African American inmates in prison by almost doubling it is puzzling to me to be sure.
The rest of the field has a voting record that screams tax and spend socialists far to loudly for my sensitive tax paying ears..

Michael D,
Ted Kennedy, for everything else one might say about him, has made a career of fighting for the poor and working class. That’s honorable. Making a career (and yes, Ron Paul is a career politician too) of making life easier for big business and cross burners? Not so honorable.

Could you expound on Hillarys actions that warrant comparing her to hitler?

Holding politicians, legally, to their campaign promise has long been a daydream of mine. It is a most excellent idea sir!

… Your solution to the Korean problem, unfortunately, is quite divorced from reality. Call my cousin who runs the distributing company? That’s your solution? And how is a bar in a small town discriminating against a minority as “likely” as that minority being connecting to the bar’s suppliers?

Yet it does exist, and while your efforts to distance yourself are most admirable, it is a problem we must all address and try to solve together.

You’ll have to explain how the ACLU is racist. That has to be one of the most … interesting views expressed on this site.

Shelly,
Thanks! I’d be honored. Your thoughts on Ron Paul are quite apt, he is a nutjob. But I wonder how many supporters he has would actually vote for the good candidates? Do any lefties actually support him?

Michael D,

Nut job???? Not rational??? Examples please???

………. Perhaps a bit, how shall I put this… devoted?

I’m not sure what you mean by cognitive discourse. Wouldn’t that be thinking? Do you mean rational discourse?

My impression is that Shelly got the correct conclusion of the post and the comments thread. Namely, that Ron Paul isn’t all he’s cracked up to be, and that some of his supporters refuse to see it.

I’ll address the ACLU first because I may have broken a record for most interesting. If, as I mentioned previously, we are calling a racist someone who decides based on race, then the ACLU is a racist organization by definition. By example, the ACLU concludes that job preferences should be given to people because of their race not qualifications and therefore is racist in it’s actions.
Shelly got absolutely nothing from the sections of the forum that explain rational positions of supporters, all she got was affirmation that she is correct on everything she believes and discounts everything else. And yes I meant cognitive discourse, name calling is counterproductive and a waste of time and energy, I give pet names like Hitlery based on the fact that I don’t approve of her tactics or her platform but as far as comparing her to Hitler it has little to do with that, it’s just that nothing else fits with Hillary or comes to mind besides her being a socialist.
Ron Paul, like anyone, has faults I agree but to what extent and comparatively speaking are they as detrimental to the country as the other candidates? I do not think so and will vote accordingly until I find reason to do otherwise. There is one very big reason I am so pleased about your site. I have been to other sites to have discussions of this sort and it quickly becomes name calling, distortions, and a basic waste of time and energy. I want / need to have intelligent conversations with like minded / thinking individuals and this site fits my taste and needs. I am not close minded and will consider all legitimate claims against Dr. Paul becoming the next president but I am comparison shopping here not relying on blind faith.
My view on the Korean example, as I mentioned, “( as likely as the scenario you put forth I believe).” is as far fetched as the example itself hence the sarcasm via the distributor remark and such
Ted Kennedy’s brainchild amnesty bill is bad for the working class and the poor. If anyone thinks that amnesty is a good idea then dictionary.com for the definition of “illegal” and “amnesty” is my recommendation. Only one adverse effect of amnesty is this, once the people that are supposedly doing “jobs U.S. citizens will not do” get amnesty does anyone believe that they will not strive for the better jobs that we will do? As with the Regan nightmare amnesty the voids will be filled by more illegal immigrants. And just so you know, I am curious as to exactly when my profession became a job I wouldn’t do. I am competing more and more with not only dirt bag contractors that would exploit the illegals to underbid me as with the actual illegals that figure out how to get into the industry and further drive down pricing. I am not a bigot or a racist and I have sympathy for anyone who would find their country so dissatisfying that they would risk their life to come here only to be exploited. Finally, legal immigrants that went through the pains of following the procedures to become legal citizens are very unhappy with the “line cutters” being given amnesty for obvious reasons and are not so happy with the lack of assimilation or requirements to at least have an understanding of the language. Press 1 for English makes me want to vomit every time I hear it. Lets face it this country is filled with immigrants that made it their top priority to feel like they fit in then a particular group comes here with disdain for the country and the people in it. Kennedy is a career politician and that’s all he is, not a champion of the people like his brothers and not a bootlegging organized crime figure like his father, he’s just out for re-election.

Sorry I must have backed over the Korean topic ending, but to finish my thought, to think that a single Korean would live in a bigot neighborhood alone is far fetched. First off Koreans are very intelligent and second off they have a great sense of self preservation. In addition they are very racist as are most Asians. That is not a racist remark that is first hand knowledge. I can elaborate if necessary.

Michael D,
Your argument about affirmative action is old and tired. It is, and always has been, an attempt to handle a messed up situation: You have a limited resource, and a whole group of people who have an unfair disadvantage with regards to obtaining that resource. It is, therefore, a bandaid.
We need to address the underlying problem before we remove the bandaid or there will be blood loss.

And no, that does not make the ACLU racist.

Hillary is far from a socialist. She’s too right wing for that. And frankly, comparing her to hitler is just offensive and inappropriate.

Ron Paul has some fairly large faults, some that are unique to him, like his position on federal government and civil rights. Some of his faults are more widespread, like his positions on reproductive choice and gay rights. He doesn’t seem to be worth the time to investigate further.

As for the Korean example, I can ditch examples and just cut to the core of the problem: Removing legal protection in the mad hope that the market will provide protection is completely wrongheaded. It ignores history. People do hurt each other, and can survive while doing so. From larger instances like robber barons and wars, to smaller instances like sun down towns and segregation. You know, when restaurants and schools were off limits to people because of skin color? Yes, they could sometimes “just go elsewhere”, but that’s not always practical, is it?

Complete Amnesty is not the right path. But neither is an obsessive hunt and demonization of illegal immigrants.

If press 1 for english makes you vomit, you have an issue you need to work through. So what? Plenty of countries have second languages, and launguages shift and change. Its not a big deal.

Kennedy is many things, but a man who has consistently fought for the interests of the working class, among those other things, is in that respect a good man.

In addition they are very racist as are most Asians. That is not a racist remark that is first hand knowledge. I can elaborate if necessary.

. Yes that is a racist comment. Unless you know most of the Asians in the entire world, and can say “Yes they are all racists”, then you are generalizing an entire group of people over your “first hand knowledge”. That’s racism.

The Asian community admits they are racist. In Thailand if you go to a bar or a restaurant or a Mui Thai arena there is a sign over the door stating the price for “Thai’s” and the price for “others”. Similar situation in all Asian countries. I don’t have to know most of the Asians in the world to know this especially if they admit it openly. So it’s not a racist statement it is a statement of fact. It is presumptuous of you to label me a racist as I have said I am not and offered to elaborate if necessary and I will not say that your generalizing of me is racist. I mean by your definition politics is racist based on which racist side you affiliate yourself with. (hmmm I never thought about it like that). Politics is a bad thing because it breeds racism. Sounds like a bumper sticker in there somewhere.

Old and tired? Unfair disadvantage? You lost me there. How is it old and tired if it is appropriate and factual?
I’ll not use my pet names for Clinton anymore because it’s taken too seriously here, my apologies for being “inappropriate”.

I guess when the illegals are threatening your interests directly then you may see the adverse effects of illegal immigration vs. the benefits of legal immigration. I am in the position to see first hand the detriment of the illegal immigration wave and when my house is foreclosed on because market values are down because cheap labor has degraded the pricing and cost of living increases (which are unheard of in the construction industry anyway) and they take away my internet and you don’t hear from me anymore the problem of illegal immigration will be solved won’t it. Carpenters have been crucified since the beginning of time and there’s no end in sight.

Kennedy is trash. I’m from MA and I know first hand that the man cares about the working class as much as Edie Amine cared for Uganda. He is self centered and self motivated and I have given examples but I will offer this. If Ted didn’t see the illegal immigrants as potential supportive voters for his career and self interests he would be personally escorting them out of the country. I have befriended illegal immigrants and helped them more than Ted has helped the working class and all the while reminded them that they needed to “take care” of their illegal status. My significant other is a legal immigrant and works for social services and is quite put off by the line cutters and the attempts to reward their illegal behavior with amnesty. Most legal immigrants feel the same way about amnesty so to say that ” an obsessive hunt and demonization of illegal immigrants.” is the only other option is just putting a negative spin on the term deportation. Legal immigrants have dealt with the word for years. Let’s not spin it as derogatory please.

Lastly, Paul’s views on civil rights, gay rights, and abortion are consistent with the oath to uphold the constitution. What’s the problem here? I’m not “wrapping myself in the constitution” I’m merely noting that all politicians swear an oath to uphold it and few do. Faulting Paul for doing what he swore to do is hardly a reason not to vote for him. Again a law to enforce campaign promises would be a good idea but it would leave us with no politicians. Good thing, bad thing, you decide.

Fitnessfortheoccasion, I have to be honest here and say that I don’t read or listen to the news much and I just followed a link on your page to the Jena 6 story. It made me ill. I capitulate your Korean example. This (Jena 6) is the example you may have given in the first place.
I am disgusted that this sort of thing goes on and can’t understand why, as the intelligent beings that we are supposed to be, there is still the whites only attitude. To all the whites that would have their own tree, as long as you want to put nooses in it, don’t stop there. Put it around your neck and jump. Then no blacks will want to sit under it and you’ll be a martyr to your cause. Just plain sad and ignorant.

It’s one thing to quibble about policies when you have a full selection of honest hardworking choices. But of all the Presidential candidates of any party, all I’ve seen are Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, and maybe Obama. Everyone else is on the take and whatever comes out of their mouth is what is popular at the time.

Of those candidates, only Ron Paul believes in the rule of law. That is, that the Constitution is the law of the land and if you want to amend it, there is a process for that; otherwise you should follow it.

Everyone else justifies ignoring the law on the basis of the greater good, or precedent. You can’t break law to make law.

I agree based on the knowledge at hand but vsync do you find that you get a lot of people who see Paul as a racist, among other things based on his constitutionally restrained voting record.
This line of disregard for the purposes of smearing Dr. Paul makes me ill. He appears to be the most rigid and consistent politician with regards to upholding his oath to the “god damned piece of paper” than virtually all other politicians with maybe Gravel second (not excluding Gravel on immigration).
By comparison to Paul (by my account) all politicians, forget the candidates, pale to Paul’s record. Are you and I and many others just blind to the real Ron Paul or are party lines so important that people would be so ignorant as to disagree with an individual before they know what the individual’s credentials are?
Until someone either provides me with solid reasons not to vote for him I am voting Ron Paul and suggesting to anyone I meet that they do the same. If I do learn a good reason not to vote for him over the other options I will be very sad that this is where this country is.
There appears to be a great divide between the merits of Dr. Paul’s credentials and record vs. the next most likely president of these United States. The polls suggest that the people want him and my heart tells me this. The media can discount it, the democrats can discount it but the truth is that “We The People” see bad things coming from the government and have for many years and we want change for the better not politics as usual!!!!!

If forced to choose between the socialists on the left and the fascists on the right, I’d rather vote for the one and only candidate who is a straight-talking, Jeffersonian-type Constitutionalist, and proponent of small government and free-trade, free-market, laissez-faire capitalism. If elected President, Ron Paul will bring home ALL our troops, from all 157 countries they occupy. He’ll bring America back to its non-interventionist roots. He’ll eliminate inflation by putting us back on a gold standard. Also, with individual rights once more protected (private property rights and the enforcement of contracts), tribalism, racism, goup-ism will diminish. Statism and collectivism have all but destroyed this country. All that will change if Ron Paul is elected President. Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans are working TOGETHER, to continue this charade called American Politics because they both benefit from their current state of being.

Michael D,
I kind of tuned you out on this thread when you said “The Asian community admits they are racist”. Such fucking bullshit.

friendsofliberty,

If forced to choose between the socialists on the left and the fascists on the right, I’d rather vote for the one and only candidate who is a straight-talking, Jeffersonian-type Constitutionalist, and proponent of small government and free-trade, free-market, laissez-faire capitalism.

. So does that make Ron Paul a fascist? Just kidding, I grok you here. I just don’t see why socialism is so much scarier than anything else. Why is cooperation and caring for people such a horrible thing?

I don’t think bringing all of our troops home is wise. We are still a part of the UN, and peacekeeping (if that is all we did) under the UN is noble and useful.

The gold standard thing…. doesn’t really move me one way or the other.

The individual rights thing will not get rid of racism etc. Especially with Ron’s attacks on the civil rights legislation, opposition to gay rights, and reproductive choice.

I do see a lot of problems with the current system. There’s just no way Ron Paul is the solution.

Well let me ask you this Fitness, oh great identifier of bullshit, what is your experience with the Asian community that makes you so assuredly correct on your stance versus mine???? I have first hand knowledge that it is the way I portrayed. What do you have to refute it? I offered to elaborate my point if you remember and you went on the offense and “turned me out”. So please feel free to prove my statement incorrect with something more apt than “Such fucking bullshit”.

Michael D,
Therein lies the problem with your argument. My position does not come from specific experience with some members of a community. It comes from logic. Having not met all members of a community based on “race”, how can I possibly say what all of them are thinking?

I could draw on personal experience. Like one of my closer friends from high school, who is asian (from Hong Kong) and decidedly not racist. And counter examples can be good, but I was hoping to argue this on the more abstract merits.

It is bullshit, but I should go into more detail as to why. I thought I had already done this:

Yes that is a racist comment. Unless you know most of the Asians in the entire world, and can say “Yes they are all racists”, then you are generalizing an entire group of people over your “first hand knowledge”. That’s racism.

Here is another way of looking at what you are saying.

You have a group of many millions of people. You used Asians. I’ll use white people named Joe. (So its a smaller pool, but still). Let’s say there are 1 million Joes in the world. Let’s also say I know 100 people named Joe. Personally. 95 Joes are married to someone named Jane. Would it be correct to say “I have first hand knowledge that most Joes are married to Janes”?
What if 100 Joes all say the word “frick”. Could I say “All Joes say frick”?

Within the context of the people I know directly, sure. But to extrapolate that to the million Joes in the world does not work out so well in reality. And why would it? That is why your argument is such bullshit.

(I should add that I know you can make effective arguments. You do so in other threads. This one just isn’t effective, or logically sound.)

What’s in a name? Or a race for that matter? I’ll be bold and say that in my opinion (only) that more people in this world are racist than not. I used the Asians for example as it is a rather large population and because you initiated the point. I am versed (slightly) in the culture of Japanese, Laos, Thai, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese. Though it is considered in your (and many others) thinking that racism is always a bad thing, it is considered a useful tool for the preservation of culture and society in many countries. You cannot stay in most countries for more than 30 days without renewing your visa. Asian countries have strict immigration laws and enforce them vigorously. They are admittedly racist, they are open about it so my argument is effective and completely logically sound in my view. My Asian partner does not consider me a racist but admits to being a racist. Now should I dismiss this entire subject? No way baby. I’ll use it for education of myself and others.

Ummm.. Can we start a new thread about the polls during and after the debate in MI? I have been observing that it appears that Ron Paul had well over double the percentage of positive votes compared to any other (supposedly) Republican candidate.
This is extremely significant and is being ignored by the media and even deleted from the results. One screenshot I saw (cnbc pulled the results immediately so only screenshots exist now) of the polling results showed Ron Paul’s numbers over 70%. Could this mean that that many people are brainwashed into thinking all the wrong things about the man? Conversely could it mean that maybe the people that are against Paul for racist and other issues are just misinformed or blind or worse, ignorant.

If this (70+% approval) doesn’t make you want to look a little deeper into the allegations that Dr. Paul is not the best choice for president and why then I’m wrong about the perception and comprehension abilities of supposed intellectuals.

The “spin” is that he’s got some major flaws, but no hard evidence is ever presented either to examples of how “his” actions/words display detrimental results regarding our nation or how “his” beliefs/views are detrimental to our nation.

The position he is vying for is not “the great politically correct master of the U.S.” and it isn’t “the I am better than all other humans in the U.S.” it is the “Presidency of the U.S.”. I’ll break it down for those to wrapped up in party lines to see my point. To preside over the U.S. Dictionary, 2nd definition of preside (the root word of president), .
Unfortunately for citizens of the U.S., the leaders of the last 60+ years cared not that it (presidency) has to be for the good of the U.S. as spelled out by the constitution. Again all politicians swear an oath to uphold it but are not accountable for infractions against this oath.

Who the hell in the race is going to do the most/best for the country?
John Backwards? (puke, gag) John can’t distinguish what’s best for his wife’s health, how can he ever be trusted to decide what’s right for a nation.
Rudy Druleiliani? Kill me first please.
Twitt Palmney? Certainly we’ll get the results he provided in MA for the entire nation from this prick.
Mike Gravel? He’s got chutzpa but is that enough to offset the irrationality?
No, sorry but I’m not alone, or maybe I am (deleted televised poll results, it is the matrix ). Choose the pill because of the color Mr. Anderson not for the effects? OMG THE INSANITY IS ALL AROUNDDDDDDDDD!

I have yet to see any actual evidence of racist speech on the part of Ron Paul. All I have seen is quotes from third and fourth party sources claiming to be early writings of Ron Paul. Not one person here, or in any article that I have seen, has produced any audio, video, or original text with racist statements from Ron Paul.
I am no blind supporter, I would be the first to condemn any such statements, but it is irrational and unfair to judge the man by quotes from unnamed sources.
The Gay Rights issue is a little harder to get around, but all I have directly heard or read from Ron Paul is that this should be a state issue. You may not feel that this is strong enough but it is certainly a far cry from the outright homophobia claimed by some on posting here. Most of the Democratic candidates have terrible positions on this issue, so it certainly isn’t that he is the only ass in the field.
If anyone can cite an original text that I can see where Ron Paul has made directly racist or homophobic statements I would appreciate it if they would post a link or cite the article so that I can look it up.

I don’t think you’re going to get it Nathan. You’re going to get interpretations of someones thinking of racist statements be it true or not they are quick to throw the name calling in around here. I have been called a racist and a homophobic on this site so far and neither are true. So that’s what to expect. Good luck…

I’ll be bold and say that in my opinion (only) that more people in this world are racist than not.

Can you back that up?

I used the Asians for example as it is a rather large population and because you initiated the point.

I did not. I used an example of a man being discriminated against because of his ethnicity. That was not an invitation to say “well everyone like him is a racist, so its ok”.

Even if the governments of particular Asian countries are racist (and that is a huge if. Plenty of countries, such as Switzerland, have incredibly strict immigration requirements), a government’s ethic is not fully the ethic of its people.

Ron Paul’s performance in the polls, like that of any other non “mainstream” politician, is unfortunately really hard to pin down (take Kucinich for example). I certainly don’t put too much weight in them with regards to a candidate’s fitness for office. Most polls show Rudy and Clinton in the lead. I don’t want to see either of them in office (although if forced to decide I would hold my breath and vote against Rudy).

Ron Paul has some good points, surely. He also has some bad points. For me, his support of hate groups, racism, impractical “state’s rights” stance, opposition to universal health care, gay rights, civil rights and reproductive choice just outweigh the good (being anti-war, pro-transparency and vaguely libertarian about non “upsets fundamentalist christian” personal behavior)

I like John Edwards. A lot. Taking a shot at his wife’s health is really low. Quite frankly, I wish his wife was running. She’s amazing.

Jim Dwyer,
The SPLC is a well known organization that fights hate groups. They were one of the organizations during the civil rights movement. The ADL works on issues of anti-semitism. Why do you dislike these organizations?

Nathan S,

I have yet to see any actual evidence of racist speech on the part of Ron Paul. All I have seen is quotes from third and fourth party sources claiming to be early writings of Ron Paul. Not one person here, or in any article that I have seen, has produced any audio, video, or original text with racist statements from Ron Paul.

Then you are covering your eyes.

Under the headline of “Terrorist Update,” for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

. As for “claiming to be early writings of Ron Paul”, the Ron Paul Political Report is his publication. Where is the “claim”?
There is also the matter of his policy positions. He voted agains the civil rights act. He has stood against laws targeting cross burning. He has echoed the racist refrain of “state’s rights” from the era of civil rights movement, the exact same argument racists tried to use to quash civil rights.

I am judging him based on his quotes, his writings, and his voting record. I’d say that’s quite on the mark.

The Gay Rights issue is a little harder to get around, but all I have directly heard or read from Ron Paul is that this should be a state issue. You may not feel that this is strong enough but it is certainly a far cry from the outright homophobia claimed by some on posting here.

It isn’t just “not strong enough”, its bullshit. He knows doing this will lead to some states enacting profoundly anti-gay laws. Some already have. Of course “it could be worse”, but that isn’t a great argument for a Presidential candidate.

You are right about his not being the only ass in the field. There are quite a few this election season.

Michael D,
The direct quotes were in the post (are people reading it?). I reproduced them down here in the comments section. If you don’t like being called a racist, don’t say things like “All asians are racist”. I’m no expert, but that might help.

So an apology would be nice. I didn’t take a shot at her health and making an issue of his disregard for his wifes health is not a cheap shot on my part it is Edwards who’s taking the cheap shot. You spun it that way.

Michael D,
I will definitely apologize for making it sound like you were attacking Elizabeth Edward’s health. You were just taking a cheap shot at her husband, and utterly ignoring her own agency in the matter.

I don’t see myself as someone who takes cheap shots (but then I don’t view myself as a racist and you do). I agree, I was totally ignoring her position but I do have a reason. Are you married? I was married for a while and one thing I know is when my wife was sick she wouldn’t make a big fuss over it she kept on keeping on. My disregard for Elizabeth’s position is based on my own understanding of the situation that the campaign trail is long and taxing, just what you want for a person that is in her condition (or anyone that is feeling the effects of her affliction) no?

Michael D,
That is a very good point. For me, I was speaking towards an understanding that serious illness need not get in the way of getting things done. One of the biggest frustrations of any illness or disability is that feeling of not being able to achieve a goal. From everything I have read about Elizabeth Edwards, she strikes me as a deeply compassionate person, and I think she really wants to have an impact on the world. So I immediately thought “this is her choice, she wants this”.

I think that Dr. Paul’s ability to distance political action from social ideology are what make him attractive. Sure he may personally believe that Gay Marriage/Abortion etc. is wrong but he has a more suitable plan to deal with argumentatively impossible cultural issues. His idea allows community to define moral standards, in ways that do not interrupt basic human rights to good education, standards of health, and enfranchisement.

(I apologize if I simply can’t accept that Gay Marriage rights are as essential as other civil rights or that their subsequent denial is as much a travesty as what befell black folks prior to the 1960’s. However for the record, I do support Gay Marriage).

You seem to have concocted an ad hominem attack on Dr. Paul in order to avoid a more intellectually tricky argument that the Federal government should exceed its constitutionally provided boundaries. Its a trick commonly used to deflate the power of the states rights ideology by tainting it with racism. No student of history can deny that states rights is intimately tied to slavery and segregation, but no student of logic or political philosophy can purport that it necessarily follows that one who supports states rights, classical liberalism, or nullification in federal unions is necessarily a racist or a bigot.

Dr. Paul simply believes that state sovereignty has the power to solve many divisive issues by allowing folks to vote with their feet. I for one do not disagree with him. I do see your point viz. civil rights in a federally divided country. It pains my heart that states rights were responsible for the greatest evil in American history. But I believe that its the only thing that can save America now.

xn,
I don’t think Paul really does distance his social ideology from what he promotes. I believe his harping on state’s rights are a means to his personal ends.

His idea allows community to define moral standards, in ways that do not interrupt basic human rights to good education, standards of health, and enfranchisement.

Not really. Take abortion for example. On either side of the debate, one argues that basic constitutional rights are at stake. Allowing the states to decide the issue means that one’s basic rights would shift from state to state. So a particular community’s definition of “moral standards” could very easily trounce one’s rights.

I think Gay rights are as essential because of the core issues they represent: separation of church and state, the use of identity as a means to deny people rights and benefits, etc.

You seem to have concocted an ad hominem attack on Dr. Paul in order to avoid a more intellectually tricky argument that the Federal government should exceed its constitutionally provided boundaries.

Not really. I’ve just seen through his bullshit. I think a debate about the role of the Fed is a very good one to have. That said, Paul’s actions speak so clearly. His opposition to the civil rights act. His position on cross burning. His position on abortion, church and state, and homosexuality. Ron Paul is a by the book far right Republican on these issues, he’s just using the old frame of “state’s rights” to push it, and it appears to be fooling a lot of people.

I don’t think letting states decide their own issues will save America. I believe it will introduce a number of unfortunate consequences.